The consensus on what won or lost incumbent governments the election during my lifetime has been:
1979: the economy 1983: a weak and divided opposition 1987: the economy 1992: taxation policy 1997: the economy plus a tired government 2001: the economy + a weak opposition 2005: the economy 2010: the economy 2015: implosion of the Lib Dems and fear of the SNP 2017: Brexit 2019: Brexit plus an opposition leader who'd proposed to send Novichok samples to Russia to be tested
The last 3 elections have been highly unusual. I'd argue even in 2015 the economy was a factor: Cameron made a big deal of "there is no money" and managed to pin the blame for austerity on Brown.
I don't think immigration has ever won a British election. Not in 2015 at the height of UKIP's power, nor in either of the post-Brexit elections. 2019 was about closure of the Brexit chapter, and keeping Corbyn out.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
Checked the T's and C's for beatification. You either need to have produced a miracle or have been martyred. You may need to brush up on your miracle skills, assuming you don't want martyrdom.
IF so, then surely the Age of Miracles is NOT yet ceased!
However, the unfortunate condition, requiring those beautified/venerated by Holy Mother Church, be as dead as Marley's door-nail, does raise this equally unfortunate question:
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
No. I’m just laughing at the sentence “survival isn’t the be all and and all.”
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
Checked the T's and C's for beatification. You either need to have produced a miracle or have been martyred. You may wish to brush up on your miracle skills, assuming you don't want martyrdom.
Always thought it was a beat of a cheat to be able to avoid the martydom, or at the least that a separate name should be used for the martyred saints versus the 'after they died people said X did Y, or they prayed they prayed to X and I guess they intervened with the big man upstairs to cause a miracle' types.
Used to be a lot easier to get the Saint prefix of course, it's been bureaucratised - that bloody blob again.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
Sure, kill a few children and oldies rathger than inconvenience you. It's all externalities so wgaf?
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
In the process of beatification, the life, writings, and virtues of the candidate are closely examined. If the person is found to have lived a life of heroic virtue, the Church may declare them to be venerable. The next step, beatification, requires evidence of one miracle attributed to the candidate's intercession. (In the case of martyrs, the miracle is not necessary for beatification.)
Once beatified, the person is referred to as "Blessed" and can be venerated in certain contexts within the Catholic Church, usually within specific locales or communities connected with the individual. Beatification does not make the person a saint in the full sense; canonization, the final step, does, and it requires evidence of a second miracle.
Are you *sure* your writings would bear close inspection by the Church?
You friends saying “Oh God, here’s that blessed Leon” doesn’t mean you’re going to be beatified.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
Sure, kill a few children and oldies rathger than inconvenience you. It's all externalities so wgaf?
I've never killed anyone thank you very much.
You're just being patently absurd. Your argument doesn't hold any merit.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
Anglican theology a bit of a fudge? Shocking indeed.
There is Saint Charles the Martyr though, so apparently one additional saint was permitted.
It is weird though, like saying all that saints business is nonsense, unless they were grandfathered in.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
Seems reasonable to me. Think of it as like a new government abolishing the honours system. No more knighthoods or ennoblements, but you let the old lords, sirs, dames and MBEs keep their titles.
The consensus on what won or lost incumbent governments the election during my lifetime has been:
1979: the economy 1983: a weak and divided opposition 1987: the economy 1992: taxation policy 1997: the economy plus a tired government 2001: the economy + a weak opposition 2005: the economy 2010: the economy 2015: implosion of the Lib Dems and fear of the SNP 2017: Brexit 2019: Brexit plus an opposition leader who'd proposed to send Novichok samples to Russia to be tested
The last 3 elections have been highly unusual. I'd argue even in 2015 the economy was a factor: Cameron made a big deal of "there is no money" and managed to pin the blame for austerity on Brown.
I don't think immigration has ever won a British election. Not in 2015 at the height of UKIP's power, nor in either of the post-Brexit elections. 2019 was about closure of the Brexit chapter, and keeping Corbyn out.
Let's suppose we accept that the next election is likely to be decided by the economy, and that therefore the Tories are more or less doomed to defeat. It therefore seems sensible for the Tories to focus on those second-order issues that might reduce the damage and reduce the scale of defeat.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
Agreed but that is not what Drakeford has mandated across Wales
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
I’m literally writing 15,000 words on this very issue at the moment. It’s quite a bit more complex than that but, admittedly, the only post-Reformatiom saint the CoE have got round to formally acclaiming is Charles I and even he’s not universally accepted.
Basically the idea of the Pope acclaiming saints is a relatively recent invention. The Protestants in the sixteenth century were not against saints per se but they looked at them with a critical eye. Thomas Becket is the major example of someone being desainted by the new CoE although he got let back in through the back door of popular tradition.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
Seems reasonable to me. Think of it as like a new government abolishing the honours system. No more knighthoods or ennoblements, but you let the old lords, sirs, dames and MBEs keep their titles.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
Seems reasonable to me. Think of it as like a new government abolishing the honours system. No more knighthoods or ennoblements, but you let the old lords, sirs, dames and MBEs keep their titles.
Seems daft to me. It just fossilises a hierarchy.
Ah, the state church having that option suddenly makes a lot more sense.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
I’m literally writing a 15,000 on this very issue at the moment. It’s quite a bit more complex than that but, admittedly, the only post-Reformatiom saint the CoE have got round to formally acclaiming is Charles I and even he’s not universally accepted.
Basically the idea of the Pope acclaiming saints is a relatively recent invention. The Protestants in the sixteenth century were not against saints per se but they looked at them with a critical eye. Thomas Becket is the major example of someone being desainted by the new CoE although he got let back in through the back door of popular tradition.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
I’m literally writing 15,000 words on this very issue at the moment. It’s quite a bit more complex than that but, admittedly, the only post-Reformatiom saint the CoE have got round to formally acclaiming is Charles I and even he’s not universally accepted.
Basically the idea of the Pope acclaiming saints is a relatively recent invention. The Protestants in the sixteenth century were not against saints per se but they looked at them with a critical eye. Thomas Becket is the major example of someone being desainted by the new CoE although he got let back in through the back door of popular tradition.
Very dodgy, old Thos, I assume? Best known for telling a King where to get off in terms of interference with the Church in England.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
Agreed but that is not what Drakeford has mandated across Wales
Have you tried a red ribbon to the grille of your BMW yet?
That poor priest taking confession does not know what he is in for.
I was surprised when I was in an Irish Catholic church a few years ago - for a mass before Christmas where the Priest was to say prayers for my wife's Nana, who had died just before Christmas some years previously - when the Priests took confession during the mass. Members of the congregation formed lines on either side of the pews and went forward to confess their sins, and receive forgiveness for them, from the two priests standing at the head of the queues.
It was very different from the idea I had of confession from TVs and film, with the confession box, but it seems that the ratio of sinners to priests is such that they have to make the process more efficient. And the public aspect of it seems to be a plus for the clergy.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
Agreed but that is not what Drakeford has mandated across Wales
Have you tried a red ribbon to the grille of your BMW yet?
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
Agreed but that is not what Drakeford has mandated across Wales
Have you tried a red ribbon to the grille of your BMW yet?
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
Agreed but that is not what Drakeford has mandated across Wales
Have you tried a red ribbon to the grille of your BMW yet?
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
Agreed but that is not what Drakeford has mandated across Wales
Have you tried a red ribbon to the grille of your BMW yet?
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
Agreed but that is not what Drakeford has mandated across Wales
Have you tried a red ribbon to the grille of your BMW yet?
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
Agreed but that is not what Drakeford has mandated across Wales
Have you tried a red ribbon to the grille of your BMW yet?
As in the colour of a child's blood as they go under your radiator?
I prefer thinking of them going pop like opening a can of Pringles. Need to see how many you can pop each week.
Once you pop, you just can't stop.
There is an amazing comment under that article:
" let me tell you, getting hit by a car doing 30 and a car doing 20 feels exactly the same, I can vouch for it, they both hurt like hell regardless of speed."
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
I’m literally writing 15,000 words on this very issue at the moment. It’s quite a bit more complex than that but, admittedly, the only post-Reformatiom saint the CoE have got round to formally acclaiming is Charles I and even he’s not universally accepted.
Basically the idea of the Pope acclaiming saints is a relatively recent invention. The Protestants in the sixteenth century were not against saints per se but they looked at them with a critical eye. Thomas Becket is the major example of someone being desainted by the new CoE although he got let back in through the back door of popular tradition.
Very dodgy, old Thos, I assume? Best known for telling a King where to get off in terms of interference with the Church in England.
Preventing secular authorities exercise legal control over Church property and Church personnel.
So anyone who could read and write could claim to be a clergyman and immune to prosecution. It does make you wonder what was in Cromwells Black Book, doesn’t it?
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
“Survival isn't the be all and end all.”
I, literally, literally, laughed out loud when I read that.
Not sure why, considering its an issue we've discussed since before lockdown was lifted.
The idea "cars can have accidents, would you ban cars" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device, designed to get you to say "no of course not" but some people here seem to have taken the argument at face value and decided yes.
Should we go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from the flu?
This is an issue where I expect PBers are closer to consensus than the debate format makes out. We need sensible speed limits focused on relative risks, with the opportunity to have lower limits including 20mph where there are for example lots of children or parked cars blocking visibility, or on quiet residential streets.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
Agreed but that is not what Drakeford has mandated across Wales
Have you tried a red ribbon to the grille of your BMW yet?
As in the colour of a child's blood as they go under your radiator?
I prefer thinking of them going pop like opening a can of Pringles. Need to see how many you can pop each week.
Once you pop, you just can't stop.
There is an amazing comment under that article:
" let me tell you, getting hit by a car doing 30 and a car doing 20 feels exactly the same, I can vouch for it, they both hurt like hell regardless of speed."
I'm not sure that comment has been scientifically peer reviewed.
That poor priest taking confession does not know what he is in for.
I was surprised when I was in an Irish Catholic church a few years ago - for a mass before Christmas where the Priest was to say prayers for my wife's Nana, who had died just before Christmas some years previously - when the Priests took confession during the mass. Members of the congregation formed lines on either side of the pews and went forward to confess their sins, and receive forgiveness for them, from the two priests standing at the head of the queues.
It was very different from the idea I had of confession from TVs and film, with the confession box, but it seems that the ratio of sinners to priests is such that they have to make the process more efficient. And the public aspect of it seems to be a plus for the clergy.
Int that just communion, not confession?
One queue for communion, up the middle, as a separate part of the mass.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
Demolishing a Grade II listed building without consent should in theory get you an order to restore it as it was.
Lets see if English Heritage put their foot down. They should.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
"I'll wage war on crooked migration lawyers" becomes "will unveil an anti-corruption task froce to dramatically improve the way intelligence is gathered on rogue solicitors", but creative licence is fair game.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
If you consider that the Reformation failed - in that it failed to reform the Catholic church, and so ended up creating new reformed Christian sects instead - then it is less surprising. The Catholic church is literally a survival from that pre-rational world of myth, legend and superstition.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Are you actually aiming for PB's much-prized Twat of the Year award? You're definitely the front runner
Anglicanism really is a load of old bollocks. Neither proper Catholicism nor proper Protestantism.
The Christian equivalent of the Lib Dems.
Goodnight and God bless.
No, it embraces both, all the way from high church Anglo Catholics with incense and bells to very low church Protestant evangelicals, thus it is able to be the Christian church for all England
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Are you actually aiming for PB's much-prized Twat of the Year award? You're definitely the front runner
No, I appreciate you have the lifetime service trophy for that award already, I couldn't possibly hope to rival you on that front.
Its true though. Arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings, because junkies and bored teens like setting fire to shit and if its boarded up, they can get away with it.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Go after the person who bulldozed it afterwards, preventing a police/fire investigation.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Are you actually aiming for PB's much-prized Twat of the Year award? You're definitely the front runner
No, I appreciate you have the lifetime service trophy for that award already, I couldn't possibly hope to rival you on that front.
Its true though. Arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings, because junkies and bored teens like setting fire to shit and if its boarded up, they can get away with it.
Was it you?
You have a track record of dismissing planning regulations and the conservation of anything good about this country.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Are you actually aiming for PB's much-prized Twat of the Year award? You're definitely the front runner
No, I appreciate you have the lifetime service trophy for that award already, I couldn't possibly hope to rival you on that front.
Its true though. Arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings, because junkies and bored teens like setting fire to shit and if its boarded up, they can get away with it.
As in so many areas of life whereof you pontificate with wearying certainty, you obviously know fuck all about this case, so I advise you to shut up
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Go after the person who bulldozed it afterwards, preventing a police/fire investigation.
And also whoever blocked the access road, preventing the fire brigade from reaching it to put the fire out.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
Every time I read an article on this, it reads like a story about something which happened fifty years ago. Can't believe it's happening now.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Go after the person who bulldozed it afterwards, preventing a police/fire investigation.
The bulldozing wankers were filmed, a little wonkily, tearing it all down, so they are in trouble
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Go after the person who bulldozed it afterwards, preventing a police/fire investigation.
And also whoever blocked the access road, preventing the fire brigade from reaching it to put the fire out.
Dashed organised, these junkies.
Of course, if it was all a terrible accident, the owners will be more than happy to rebuild and restore this building to its former glory. I'm sure.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
The swiftness of the sudden arson after new owners purchase and immediate demolition is rather suspicious. We probably have all seen many a gutted building not demolished so swiftly. Is that definitive proof? Of course not, but online comments arenot exactly beholden to rules of evidentiary procedure and burdens of proof. Do you have evidence there are junkies within convenient distance to the building or that it has been used by them or subject to previous vandalism? No, and you don't need to advance that theory, nor do others. Is it more likely than the other idea? Possibly, but not necessarily depending on the area.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Go after the person who bulldozed it afterwards, preventing a police/fire investigation.
If that has happened then it is a common law crime to interfere with a crime scene, which absolutely should be prosecuted. If that has happened.
If its been bulldozed as the building was unsafe after the Fire investigation had finished with it, then that's entirely reasonable.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Are you actually aiming for PB's much-prized Twat of the Year award? You're definitely the front runner
No, I appreciate you have the lifetime service trophy for that award already, I couldn't possibly hope to rival you on that front.
Its true though. Arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings, because junkies and bored teens like setting fire to shit and if its boarded up, they can get away with it.
Was it you?
You have a track record of dismissing planning regulations and the conservation of anything good about this country.
So do I, and I think people who moan about saving pubs they didn't visit enough to keep open are silly, but I swear I am not a suspect on this occasion.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
If the building was still boarded up, then arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Are you actually aiming for PB's much-prized Twat of the Year award? You're definitely the front runner
No, I appreciate you have the lifetime service trophy for that award already, I couldn't possibly hope to rival you on that front.
Its true though. Arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings, because junkies and bored teens like setting fire to shit and if its boarded up, they can get away with it.
As in so many areas of life whereof you pontificate with wearying certainty, you obviously know fuck all about this case, so I advise you to shut up
I have absolutely zero certainty on this.
I said it could be the owners, or it could be junkies. I do not know.
You are the one who seems to know with absolute certainty who is responsible. With zero evidence.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
Every time I read an article on this, it reads like a story about something which happened fifty years ago. Can't believe it's happening now.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
So Christ being eternal is not 'all', thanks for confirming.
My guess - and it is a guess - is that the new owners of The Crooked House deliberately torched it, to enable development. This happens all the time, as we all know. The blocking of the access lane, the timing of the fire, it is all too suspicious
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
Anglicanism really is a load of old bollocks. Neither proper Catholicism nor proper Protestantism.
The Christian equivalent of the Lib Dems.
Goodnight and God bless.
I think Anglicans are still more likely to be Tories than anything else, and non-conformists LDs. (Slightly different observation to the one you were making).
My guess - and it is a guess - is that the new owners of The Crooked House deliberately torched it, to enable development. This happens all the time, as we all know. The blocking of the access lane, the timing of the fire, it is all too suspicious
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
There is a 5,000 strong FB group going full Netflix documentary on this. They are compiling aerial photography and dash cam footage.
My guess - and it is a guess - is that the new owners of The Crooked House deliberately torched it, to enable development. This happens all the time, as we all know. The blocking of the access lane, the timing of the fire, it is all too suspicious
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
If your guess is correct then the second action, sending in bulldozers to demolish a crime scene, would be all the more frigging stupid. Since interfering with a crime scene is a crime in and of itself.
Not sure why junkies starting a fire in a vacant/abandoned building is such an insane suggestion, it happens all the frigging time. Under the logic of your first paragraph, since it happens all the time, we should think this is true too.
My guess - and it is a guess - is that the new owners of The Crooked House deliberately torched it, to enable development. This happens all the time, as we all know. The blocking of the access lane, the timing of the fire, it is all too suspicious
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
If your guess is correct then the second action, sending in bulldozers to demolish a crime scene, would be all the more frigging stupid. Since interfering with a crime scene is a crime in and of itself.
Not sure why junkies starting a fire in a vacant/abandoned building is such an insane suggestion, it happens all the frigging time. Under the logic of your first paragraph, since it happens all the time, we should think this is true too.
It was probably torched and levelled to build a fucking car park, to please dribbling sad infanticidal halfwits like you. So you should be *chuffed*
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
Every time I read an article on this, it reads like a story about something which happened fifty years ago. Can't believe it's happening now.
Why 50 years ago? Curious.
Oh, I didn't mean 50 in particular. Just the past.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Wikipedia says the Emperor Constantine himself was baptized by an Arian bishop, even though he was the one who called the Council of Nicaea!
Ultimately it's a bit harsh to condemn what amounts to a large number of early Christians in particular as not being Christian, when a casual glance at the time reveals there was a lot of confusion and debate over what even the basic tenets of the faith were, never mind the more esoteric disputes which would split people later.
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Wikipedia says the Emperor Constantine himself was baptized by an Arian bishop, even though he was the one who called the Council of Nicaea!
Ultimately it's a bit harsh to condemn what amounts to a large number of early Christians in particular as not being Christian, when a casual glance at the time reveals there was a lot of confusion and debate over what even the basic tenets of the faith were, never mind the more esoteric disputes which would split people later.
Sounds a bit like political parties, really. Night night.
My guess - and it is a guess - is that the new owners of The Crooked House deliberately torched it, to enable development. This happens all the time, as we all know. The blocking of the access lane, the timing of the fire, it is all too suspicious
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
If your guess is correct then the second action, sending in bulldozers to demolish a crime scene, would be all the more frigging stupid. Since interfering with a crime scene is a crime in and of itself.
Not sure why junkies starting a fire in a vacant/abandoned building is such an insane suggestion, it happens all the frigging time. Under the logic of your first paragraph, since it happens all the time, we should think this is true too.
It was probably torched and levelled to build a fucking car park, to please dribbling sad infanticidal halfwits like you. So you should be *chuffed*
Nice try, though Google Street View confirms it had a pretty substantial car park already in the first place.
Which won't serve much purpose without a destination to visit.
If everyone who is now showing such an interest in preserving this pub had actually been buying pints in it in the first place, maybe it would never have shut down originally?
My guess - and it is a guess - is that the new owners of The Crooked House deliberately torched it, to enable development. This happens all the time, as we all know. The blocking of the access lane, the timing of the fire, it is all too suspicious
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
There is a 5,000 strong FB group going full Netflix documentary on this. They are compiling aerial photography and dash cam footage.
Already worked out where the digger came from.
Himley Environmental Ltd, proprietor Richard Norman Longley, are in the firing line. Right next door and apparenrly provided the bulldozers
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Anglicanism really is a load of old bollocks. Neither proper Catholicism nor proper Protestantism.
The Christian equivalent of the Lib Dems.
Goodnight and God bless.
I think Anglicans are still more likely to be Tories than anything else, and non-conformists LDs. (Slightly different observation to the one you were making).
Anglicans in the congregation yes, Anglican priests are very often LD or even Labour.
The most conservative evangelical Baptists, Pentecostals etc do though tend to be Tories
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Anglicanism really is a load of old bollocks. Neither proper Catholicism nor proper Protestantism.
The Christian equivalent of the Lib Dems.
Goodnight and God bless.
I think Anglicans are still more likely to be Tories than anything else, and non-conformists LDs. (Slightly different observation to the one you were making).
Anglicans in the congregation yes, Anglican priests are very often LD or even Labour.
The most conservative evangelical Baptists, Pentecostals etc do though tend to be Tories
I've met CofE members (if that's the right word - adherents?) who show signs of having e.g. totally weird army-eyed perspectives on the world but who when you chat with them turn out to be lifelong supporters of Labour. Goodness knows what this means, but such people exist.
There could be some Trump case action today. The prosecution are applying for an order against him banning him from revealing evidence they disclose to him. Their grounds are that he posted to his Truth Social service threatening to go after people who go after him. He has responded by insulting the judge. His lawyers asked for extra time. Guess what. They didn't get it. His side were supposed to respond by 5pm Eastern time. Whether they actually had to respond and will be penalised if they didn't or whether on the contrary they had to make a case by that deadline to stop the judge just saying yes to the prosecution is unclear (to me anyway)
However I heard this weird rumour at the weekend, that I am about to be beatified. It's like one step down from being made a living saint
Obvs I'd prefer to be a living saint, but given my lifestyle, that is a reach. I don;t want to get my hopes up, to a stupid extent. But beatification makes kinda sense
The guys that told me were Irish catholics (old friends from Uni), so I'm wondering if there is some sort of left-footer grapevine where these whispers gets passed on?
I'd look a right twat if I boasted about it online and then it turned out to be a prank
No idea if this is one of your patented post-modernist wind ups but to be beatified by the Catholic Church you have to be dead. It’s the first step towards canonisation. It’s the provisional driving licence of sainthood.
Not a Catholic but my wife is and I’m currently writing a dissertation about Reformation and Counter-Reformation hagiography which involves a lot of reading about saints and how to become one. Any further questions fire away.
I am a Non-Conformist, so find the Anglican take on saints as a bit bonkers.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You are NOT the first to have noticed this, for example Cardinal Newman.
I find it instinctively daft that anyone 'modern' can be a saint. Saints to me belong in a pre-rational wotld of myth and legend and magic. The idea that anyone now, no mattr how good a life they lead, can be elevated to sainthood seems quite jarring.
Religion belongs in a pre-rational world of myth and legend and magic.
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
No it doesn't, Christ is all eternal regardless of how many Saints denominations have all Christians can agree on that
I know you like to deliberately argue points not made, but if all that mattered was agreeing the first part, surely we wouldn't have all the various denominations at all? Apparently despite agreeing on that part they do think such things matter a great deal, including your own chosen denomination, or they'd not have rules on these things in the first place.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
If you don't believe God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then no you aren't Christian.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/15/britains-most-racist-election-smethwick-50-years-on
IF so, then surely the Age of Miracles is NOT yet ceased!
However, the unfortunate condition, requiring those beautified/venerated by Holy Mother Church, be as dead as Marley's door-nail, does raise this equally unfortunate question:
Is somebody drawing a Bede on Leon?
Used to be a lot easier to get the Saint prefix of course, it's been bureaucratised - that bloody blob again.
So far as I understand it, The Anglican Church recognises saints who existed at the time of the rift with Rome, but has no mechanism to recognise more recent ones.
So does it think that under a Seperatist Church no one can be a Saint? This seems to implicitly give higher authority to the RC Church over CoE.
You're just being patently absurd. Your argument doesn't hold any merit.
In inner London and the inner suburbs roads are mostly 20mph away from the main arterial routes, but it really doesn't bother drivers because a. there are speed bumps everywhere so you wouldn't go above 20 if you value your undercarriage, b. the congestion and length of road between traffic lights or junctions is such that getting above 20 is a rarity anyway.
There is Saint Charles the Martyr though, so apparently one additional saint was permitted.
It is weird though, like saying all that saints business is nonsense, unless they were grandfathered in.
Note that I advised ANYONE, whether anti-Semite, or anti-anti-Semite, to avoid via anti-Semitic punch lines.
Basically the idea of the Pope acclaiming saints is a relatively recent invention. The Protestants in the sixteenth century were not against saints per se but they looked at them with a critical eye. Thomas Becket is the major example of someone being desainted by the new CoE although he got let back in through the back door of popular tradition.
The Crooked House pub that's burnt down featured at the start of this Jonathan Meades programme from 1994, "Get High".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apCw_qdyfkQ
Makes a change from AV, I suppose.
You are supposed to distribute it!
Though I wouldn't expect too much water into wine. My experience is that it transforms in the other direction.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/20mph-zones-wales-red-ribbon-27476085
I won't be doing that.
(Or us he more a velociphile ?)
There are better ways to influence sensible changes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-66434719
So it seems a bit like splitting hairs to object to religious folk embracing the mysticism of modern people like Saint John Paul II while accepting them embracing the Saints of the past.
Edit: ah, Mr Carnyx got there first.
Once you pop, you just can't stop.
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
" let me tell you, getting hit by a car doing 30 and a car doing 20 feels exactly the same, I can vouch for it, they both hurt like hell regardless of speed."
So anyone who could read and write could claim to be a clergyman and immune to prosecution. It does make you wonder what was in Cromwells Black Book, doesn’t it?
https://twitter.com/TmorrowsPapers/status/1688667572760150017?t=4akk-N7FpJzYs6I2_hoI8g&s=19
The Christian equivalent of the Lib Dems.
Goodnight and God bless.
Lets see if English Heritage put their foot down. They should.
What evidence do you have that it was the owners that did it? Was probably some junkie that did it instead.
Its true though. Arson happens all the time to boarded up buildings, because junkies and bored teens like setting fire to shit and if its boarded up, they can get away with it.
Indeed, you yourself have dismissed people and groups who do (or historically did) claim they were christian, despute most of them agreeing Chris is eternal, because they did not sign up to elements of the Nicene Creed or whatever and so didn't count.
You have a track record of dismissing planning regulations and the conservation of anything good about this country.
https://twitter.com/swazzle2000/status/1688652995121033216?s=20
Of course, if it was all a terrible accident, the owners will be more than happy to rebuild and restore this building to its former glory. I'm sure.
If its been bulldozed as the building was unsafe after the Fire investigation had finished with it, then that's entirely reasonable.
Need to hear from Police and Fire.
Even Muslims see Christ as a Prophet and the Messiah but they differ from Christians in that they don't believe he is son of God and don't believe in the Trinity
I said it could be the owners, or it could be junkies. I do not know.
You are the one who seems to know with absolute certainty who is responsible. With zero evidence.
https://twitter.com/SStaffsPolice/status/1688545628886884352?t=JfHiCQ07EGJAq_RXnpGkxQ&s=19
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
Already worked out where the digger came from.
Not sure why junkies starting a fire in a vacant/abandoned building is such an insane suggestion, it happens all the frigging time. Under the logic of your first paragraph, since it happens all the time, we should think this is true too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodotus_of_Byzantium
https://nitter.net/Gasolineonline/status/1688441584340152320#m
Ultimately it's a bit harsh to condemn what amounts to a large number of early Christians in particular as not being Christian, when a casual glance at the time reveals there was a lot of confusion and debate over what even the basic tenets of the faith were, never mind the more esoteric disputes which would split people later.
Which won't serve much purpose without a destination to visit.
If everyone who is now showing such an interest in preserving this pub had actually been buying pints in it in the first place, maybe it would never have shut down originally?
https://twitter.com/JJRGriffiths/status/1688679201094635520?s=20
The most conservative evangelical Baptists, Pentecostals etc do though tend to be Tories
Because they have similar views on a distinction between Christ and God.
The prosecution are applying for an order against him banning him from revealing evidence they disclose to him. Their grounds are that he posted to his Truth Social service threatening to go after people who go after him.
He has responded by insulting the judge.
His lawyers asked for extra time. Guess what. They didn't get it.
His side were supposed to respond by 5pm Eastern time. Whether they actually had to respond and will be penalised if they didn't or whether on the contrary they had to make a case by that deadline to stop the judge just saying yes to the prosecution is unclear (to me anyway)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism
Many Christians don't believe in the Trinity.
Edit: Christ means Messiah, so those who don't believe Jesus was the Messiah shouldn't call him Christ.