Telegraph publishing bullshit aboit lockdowns, I am shocked.
An article “We are all paying the terrible price for lockdown” (Nov, 19) reported that pandemic related measures in Sweden cost 60 billion kroner in 2020 and 2021, a tenth of the UK figure for Covid-related spending. This was misleading. The 60 billion kroner related only to business support. This correction has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
They may be, they may not be, Genesis only makes reference to man.
As for space travel Voyager 1 and 2 have already travelled beyond the solar system
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
We have discussed before your reconciliation of Genesis and Evolution and although I can't remember what you said I do remember it was an imaginative and convincing argument (I thought I had you over a barrel, but I didn't).
However how do you reconcile the 'in the beginning' bit if evolution tells us man wasn't anywhere near the beginning?
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
But what gives you the faith? How do you get it? Is it as simple as waking up and thinking "I believe in God/Allah/Thor/Yoda"? What makes you believe, and why?
I heartily recommend Ayahuasca. But you need to get the good stuff. Don't fuck about with fake wizards in Iquitos
Wouldn't 10 pints of Carling and a doner kebab have the same effect and be a bit cheaper?
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
Adequate facilities or no, people are going to add to the particulate levels in the rivers, as discussed, by doing what comes naturally. One assumes that the rivers being affected are broadly the same ones.
If I have to find a fly, it's that in order to appease the Natural England they've had to give them a massive bung. Given that this stupid law was a European one, it continues to disappoint me that we need to stay 'on message' with the EU's masterplan. We've left, so their writ applying across the board can fuck off.
However, overall this is still an extremely positive step and Gove and Sunak deserve credit.
Agreed. Besides continuing support for Ukraine, this is the first sensible policy I've seen from Sunak in years. No surprise it's come from Gove, he's quite good at cutting through the BS and he's done a good job with this.
Still nowhere near good enough overall with regards to construction, but this is a good baby step.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but I was told that Yorkshire Water (and Severn Trent) had to agree for development work to go ahead. Perhaps they are only allowed to object at the planning stage in very specific circumstances. I shall ask.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
They can make representations at the planning stage just like any other organisation but they don't have a veto as far as I know. Anglian have a big problem because, as you say, the boreholes are running dry as the aquifers get depleted. We are just extracting too much water and there is not enough rain to recharge them. This then affects the rivers as well.
Anglian are trying to deal with it with a series of large pipelines from the North to the south of their region.
Pesonally I think it would be much better if someone in Government just saw sense and ordered a bloody big new town or city built in North Lincolnshire instead of cramming everyone in around Peterborough.
Just further to this I checked and found this from 2012 which confirms that water companies cannot prevent developments and must supply them with water.
Nicola Sturgeon’s sudden resignation forced the SNP to spend £160,000 finding a new leader, adding to the financial problems that had built up on her watch, it has emerged.
In a report to SNP members, treasurer Stuart McDonald admitted none of the cost of the divisive month-long leadership election had been budgeted for.
He also revealed that after a series of financial crises, the party intended to recruit a “part time qualified accountant” to keep an eye on its books.
The Tories decide the way back to the public's support is to de-regulate. Interesting strategy.
Suspect that Tory de-regulation strategy may appeal to some currently disaffected middle-class conservatives.
However, also suspect it is chiefly designed to > raise much-needed campaign cash from interests keen on deregulation for fun & profit. > raise employment/consultant prospects of Tory ministers, MPs, apparatchiks and other hangers-on after the Giant Shithammer falls at next GE.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
But what gives you the faith? How do you get it? Is it as simple as waking up and thinking "I believe in God/Allah/Thor/Yoda"? What makes you believe, and why?
I heartily recommend Ayahuasca. But you need to get the good stuff. Don't fuck about with fake wizards in Iquitos
Wouldn't 10 pints of Carling and a doner kebab have the same effect and be a bit cheaper?
Zero snob appeal, which is key element of quasi-spiritualism.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but I was told that Yorkshire Water (and Severn Trent) had to agree for development work to go ahead. Perhaps they are only allowed to object at the planning stage in very specific circumstances. I shall ask.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
They can make representations at the planning stage just like any other organisation but they don't have a veto as far as I know. Anglian have a big problem because, as you say, the boreholes are running dry as the aquifers get depleted. We are just extracting too much water and there is not enough rain to recharge them. This then affects the rivers as well.
Anglian are trying to deal with it with a series of large pipelines from the North to the south of their region.
Pesonally I think it would be much better if someone in Government just saw sense and ordered a bloody big new town or city built in North Lincolnshire instead of cramming everyone in around Peterborough.
Just further to this I checked and found this from 2012 which confirms that water companies cannot prevent developments and must supply them with water.
If Anglian need to invest in new treatment facilities or reservoirs then that's what they need to do.
Our population has grown by 20% and they've not invested in a single new reservoir AFAIK let alone enough for millions of extra people. There's absolutely no excuses to stand in the way of homes for people who live here, they just need to take their own responsibilities seriously.
I don't see any reason why private firms can't do that. But if they feel they can't, they should hand the metaphorical keys back and dissolve and return all infrastructure back to the state to find someone who can.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
But what gives you the faith? How do you get it? Is it as simple as waking up and thinking "I believe in God/Allah/Thor/Yoda"? What makes you believe, and why?
I heartily recommend Ayahuasca. But you need to get the good stuff. Don't fuck about with fake wizards in Iquitos
Wouldn't 10 pints of Carling and a doner kebab have the same effect and be a bit cheaper?
Zero snob appeal, which is key element of quasi-spiritualism.
Ayahuasca definitely has snob appeal - billionaires do it in Ibiza and Belgravia - but it is certainly NOT "quasi" spiritual. It is properly spiritual. The sacred vine. It has been used in divination and shamanism for many centuries
I an also personally vouch that it is an extraordinarily profound drug, and I've done a lot of different drugs
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
We have discussed before your reconciliation of Genesis and Evolution and although I can't remember what you said I do remember it was an imaginative and convincing argument (I thought I had you over a barrel, but I didn't).
However how do you reconcile the 'in the beginning' bit if evolution tells us man wasn't anywhere near the beginning?
Talking of ancient civilisations, meanwhile, how long have humans been around? Some perhaps few hundred thousand years. Dinosaurs existed for 120m years. Just imagine where (if?) humanity will be in 1m years, let alone 120m years. Bonkers.
Pedant hat.
Dinosaurs are a whole Superorder in traditional Linnean classification. They are represented by something north of 700 species and existed for around 170 million years.
Humans are one species of the Superorder Euarchonta which has itself been around for over 80 million years.
Okey dokey. Still interested in what we will be up to in a million years' time.
I agree. There was an interesting study done about 25 years ago looking at average 'life' expectancies of species.
The bad news is that compared to invertebrates we do pretty badly.
Invertebrate species last on average 7 - 10 million years Vertebrate species last on average 3-5 million years Mammalian species last on average 1-3 million years.
Of course there are plenty of outliers to this. I have seen claims that blue whales have been around for the last 4.5 million years but I am not sure if they would count as the same species as we define them today.
But if we don't wipe ourselves out - and given that as a species we have only been around for aboiut 200,000 years - I reckon there is a decent chance we will still be around as a species in a million years.
And still be arguing about bloody planning laws.
Frankly, I'm just astonished that every single one of my ancestors managed to reproduce. I mean, how likely is that?
You wouldn't be posting on PB if they didn't, so no need to be astounded.
It is an astonishing thought though.
Going back 3 billion years, none of your ancestors were wiped out by asteroids, snowball earth, plague, global warming, or Dino looking for a snack.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but I was told that Yorkshire Water (and Severn Trent) had to agree for development work to go ahead. Perhaps they are only allowed to object at the planning stage in very specific circumstances. I shall ask.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
They can make representations at the planning stage just like any other organisation but they don't have a veto as far as I know. Anglian have a big problem because, as you say, the boreholes are running dry as the aquifers get depleted. We are just extracting too much water and there is not enough rain to recharge them. This then affects the rivers as well.
Anglian are trying to deal with it with a series of large pipelines from the North to the south of their region.
Pesonally I think it would be much better if someone in Government just saw sense and ordered a bloody big new town or city built in North Lincolnshire instead of cramming everyone in around Peterborough.
Just further to this I checked and found this from 2012 which confirms that water companies cannot prevent developments and must supply them with water.
I think it depends on how much legal weight the 'sustainability' criteria have prior to planning approval and who gets to decide that the water company are wrong if they object. This is the bit I'm not 100% sure of.
But if Anglian Water find themselves unable to stop development then obviously it seems that objection can be overridden.
Jack Smith’s Team Grilled Witnesses About Rudy Giuliani’s Drinking
The special counsel’s interest in Rudy’s drinking could play a role in undermining one of Trump’s key legal defenses
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office has repeatedly grilled witnesses about Rudy Giuliani’s drinking on and after election day, investigating whether Donald Trump was knowingly relying on an inebriated attorney while trying to overturn a presidential election.
In their questioning of multiple witnesses, Smith’s team of federal investigators have asked questions about how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power, according to a source who’s been in the room with Smith’s team, one witness’s attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter.
The special counsel’s team has also asked these witnesses if Trump had ever gossiped with them about Giuliani’s drinking habits, and if Trump had ever claimed Giuliani’s drinking impacted his decision making or judgment. Federal investigators have inquired about whether the then-president was warned, including after Election Night 2020, about Giuliani’s allegedly excessive drinking. They have also asked certain witnesses if Trump was told that the former New York mayor was giving him post-election legal and strategic advice while inebriated.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
Time for choral evensong?
Nothing so exciting, I do rather like a beautiful choral evensong
One of my most spiritual moments (outside actual theophanies) was listening to a magnficent Anglican evensong in King's College, then walking out into a misty November evening, in Cambridge: the wraiths of the fens winding down the Gothic lanes, the dampness of the air turning everything to illusion, the sounds of tinkling bicycles disppearing into the ghostly mist, along the silvered cobbles. Then I carried the chiming and resonant tunes of Howells and Bach into the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA
Been to the pub (more than one pint there), *and* to the dept too.
Ditto. The Eagle. Owned and next to Corpus Christi so was the local of my son.
First time I went, I was with a friend from Corpus, indeed. Mine (DNA was announced here, hooray) seemed to be quite an unusual reaction: the pub appeared to be much better known for its use as a USAAF/RAF (?) watering hole in the war. Graffiti on the ceiling or something.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
Jack Smith’s Team Grilled Witnesses About Rudy Giuliani’s Drinking
The special counsel’s interest in Rudy’s drinking could play a role in undermining one of Trump’s key legal defenses
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office has repeatedly grilled witnesses about Rudy Giuliani’s drinking on and after election day, investigating whether Donald Trump was knowingly relying on an inebriated attorney while trying to overturn a presidential election.
In their questioning of multiple witnesses, Smith’s team of federal investigators have asked questions about how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power, according to a source who’s been in the room with Smith’s team, one witness’s attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter.
The special counsel’s team has also asked these witnesses if Trump had ever gossiped with them about Giuliani’s drinking habits, and if Trump had ever claimed Giuliani’s drinking impacted his decision making or judgment. Federal investigators have inquired about whether the then-president was warned, including after Election Night 2020, about Giuliani’s allegedly excessive drinking. They have also asked certain witnesses if Trump was told that the former New York mayor was giving him post-election legal and strategic advice while inebriated.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
Time for choral evensong?
Nothing so exciting, I do rather like a beautiful choral evensong
One of my most spiritual moments (outside actual theophanies) was listening to a magnficent Anglican evensong in King's College, then walking out into a misty November evening, in Cambridge: the wraiths of the fens winding down the Gothic lanes, the dampness of the air turning everything to illusion, the sounds of tinkling bicycles disppearing into the ghostly mist, along the silvered cobbles. Then I carried the chiming and resonant tunes of Howells and Bach into the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA
Been to the pub (more than one pint there), *and* to the dept too.
And right outside the pub - across the road - is a church built by King Cnut. A thousand years old
I love Cambridge. It is probably the most beautiful small city in the world, and surely the most fascinating
I was perhaps more taken with the round church a bit to the north, near the market.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
Religion is like a penis.
Its OK to have one, and its OK to be proud of it.
But don't wave it around in public and don't ram it down people's throat without their consent.
Not sure why the Vatican would be concerned about exalting imperialism, the Catholic Church has never really had a problem with it, so long as it was nominally subordinate to the Bishop of Rome. The Vatican has sought to calm the uproar that erupted after Pope Francis praised Russia’s imperialist past during a video conference with Russian Catholics youths, insisting that he never intended to encourage modern-day Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said on Tuesday that Francis merely wanted to highlight the positive aspects of Russia’s spiritual and cultural history when he praised Russia’s imperial rulers Peter and Catherine the Great, encouraging young people to remember that past and hailing their way of “being Russian”.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If there are aliens, which you seem to accept, it's entirely possible that a species at a very different stage of its development was instrumental in the creation of the world as we know it, and that this superior set of beings continues to intervene in our affairs. 'God' in other words.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but I was told that Yorkshire Water (and Severn Trent) had to agree for development work to go ahead. Perhaps they are only allowed to object at the planning stage in very specific circumstances. I shall ask.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
They can make representations at the planning stage just like any other organisation but they don't have a veto as far as I know. Anglian have a big problem because, as you say, the boreholes are running dry as the aquifers get depleted. We are just extracting too much water and there is not enough rain to recharge them. This then affects the rivers as well.
Anglian are trying to deal with it with a series of large pipelines from the North to the south of their region.
Pesonally I think it would be much better if someone in Government just saw sense and ordered a bloody big new town or city built in North Lincolnshire instead of cramming everyone in around Peterborough.
Just further to this I checked and found this from 2012 which confirms that water companies cannot prevent developments and must supply them with water.
If Anglian need to invest in new treatment facilities or reservoirs then that's what they need to do.
Our population has grown by 20% and they've not invested in a single new reservoir AFAIK let alone enough for millions of extra people. There's absolutely no excuses to stand in the way of homes for people who live here, they just need to take their own responsibilities seriously.
I don't see any reason why private firms can't do that. But if they feel they can't, they should hand the metaphorical keys back and dissolve and return all infrastructure back to the state to find someone who can.
Erm no. They have been investing massively in new infrastructure. As I said, they have been building new pipelines to carry water south. One of the problems you have is that much of their region is bloody flat and not ideally suited to large reservoirs. There are not that many valleys you can flood. That said they are building two new reservoirs, one in Lincolnshire and one in the fens.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If there are aliens, which you seem to accept, it's entirely possible that a species at a very different stage of its development was instrumental in the creation of the world as we know it, and that this superior set of beings continues to intervene in our affairs. 'God' in other words.
Jack Smith’s Team Grilled Witnesses About Rudy Giuliani’s Drinking
The special counsel’s interest in Rudy’s drinking could play a role in undermining one of Trump’s key legal defenses
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office has repeatedly grilled witnesses about Rudy Giuliani’s drinking on and after election day, investigating whether Donald Trump was knowingly relying on an inebriated attorney while trying to overturn a presidential election.
In their questioning of multiple witnesses, Smith’s team of federal investigators have asked questions about how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power, according to a source who’s been in the room with Smith’s team, one witness’s attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter.
The special counsel’s team has also asked these witnesses if Trump had ever gossiped with them about Giuliani’s drinking habits, and if Trump had ever claimed Giuliani’s drinking impacted his decision making or judgment. Federal investigators have inquired about whether the then-president was warned, including after Election Night 2020, about Giuliani’s allegedly excessive drinking. They have also asked certain witnesses if Trump was told that the former New York mayor was giving him post-election legal and strategic advice while inebriated.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but I was told that Yorkshire Water (and Severn Trent) had to agree for development work to go ahead. Perhaps they are only allowed to object at the planning stage in very specific circumstances. I shall ask.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
They can make representations at the planning stage just like any other organisation but they don't have a veto as far as I know. Anglian have a big problem because, as you say, the boreholes are running dry as the aquifers get depleted. We are just extracting too much water and there is not enough rain to recharge them. This then affects the rivers as well.
Anglian are trying to deal with it with a series of large pipelines from the North to the south of their region.
Pesonally I think it would be much better if someone in Government just saw sense and ordered a bloody big new town or city built in North Lincolnshire instead of cramming everyone in around Peterborough.
Just further to this I checked and found this from 2012 which confirms that water companies cannot prevent developments and must supply them with water.
If Anglian need to invest in new treatment facilities or reservoirs then that's what they need to do.
Our population has grown by 20% and they've not invested in a single new reservoir AFAIK let alone enough for millions of extra people. There's absolutely no excuses to stand in the way of homes for people who live here, they just need to take their own responsibilities seriously.
I don't see any reason why private firms can't do that. But if they feel they can't, they should hand the metaphorical keys back and dissolve and return all infrastructure back to the state to find someone who can.
Erm no. They have been investing massively in new infrastructure. As I said, they have been building new pipelines to carry water south. One of the problems you have is that much of their region is bloody flat and not ideally suited to large reservoirs. There are not that many valleys you can flood. That said they are building two new reservoirs, one in Lincolnshire and one in the fens.
Good, I'm glad they're investing in infrastructure, that's their responsibility.
Considering our rampant population growth over a generation its a bit little and late perhaps, but better late than never.
If its insufficient, then they need to invest in more.
The simple fact is our population is more than it used to be and is growing annually. That means we need more infrastructure than it used to, and we need more houses than we used to.
A lack of sufficient infrastructure is not an excuse to compound the problem by ensuring there's a lack of sufficient housing. Ensuring two things are lacking is not a solution, when the people are already here.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
Religion is like a penis.
Its OK to have one, and its OK to be proud of it.
But don't wave it around in public and don't ram it down people's throat without their consent.
If only the Roman Catholic Church had followed your guidance.
Jack Smith’s Team Grilled Witnesses About Rudy Giuliani’s Drinking
The special counsel’s interest in Rudy’s drinking could play a role in undermining one of Trump’s key legal defenses
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office has repeatedly grilled witnesses about Rudy Giuliani’s drinking on and after election day, investigating whether Donald Trump was knowingly relying on an inebriated attorney while trying to overturn a presidential election.
In their questioning of multiple witnesses, Smith’s team of federal investigators have asked questions about how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power, according to a source who’s been in the room with Smith’s team, one witness’s attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter.
The special counsel’s team has also asked these witnesses if Trump had ever gossiped with them about Giuliani’s drinking habits, and if Trump had ever claimed Giuliani’s drinking impacted his decision making or judgment. Federal investigators have inquired about whether the then-president was warned, including after Election Night 2020, about Giuliani’s allegedly excessive drinking. They have also asked certain witnesses if Trump was told that the former New York mayor was giving him post-election legal and strategic advice while inebriated.
Rudy Giuliani don't need to be drunk to give crap legal advice. Been notorious as a crap lawyer forever.
Recently saw a hilarious re-run of a "Murder She Wrote" episode, where main foil was an absurdly publicity-hungry and comically inept district attorney in NYC, clearly modeled (including casting) on Rudy G. when he was US attorney for the Southern District of New York.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
Time for choral evensong?
Nothing so exciting, I do rather like a beautiful choral evensong
One of my most spiritual moments (outside actual theophanies) was listening to a magnficent Anglican evensong in King's College, then walking out into a misty November evening, in Cambridge: the wraiths of the fens winding down the Gothic lanes, the dampness of the air turning everything to illusion, the sounds of tinkling bicycles disppearing into the ghostly mist, along the silvered cobbles. Then I carried the chiming and resonant tunes of Howells and Bach into the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA
Been to the pub (more than one pint there), *and* to the dept too.
And right outside the pub - across the road - is a church built by King Cnut. A thousand years old
I love Cambridge. It is probably the most beautiful small city in the world, and surely the most fascinating
I was perhaps more taken with the round church a bit to the north, near the market.
A Templar church, I believe?
They are often round. Temple in London. Beautiful Garway in remote Herefordshire
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
Religion is like a penis.
Its OK to have one, and its OK to be proud of it.
But don't wave it around in public and don't ram it down people's throat without their consent.
If only the Roman Catholic Church had followed your guidance.
Now the Roman Catholic church doesn't really unless you have been baptised and confirmed a Roman Catholic.
It is not seeking to make converts like evangelical Christians or Islam
The US air force has secured $50m (£39m) funding next year for a project that could pave the way for American nuclear weapons to return to British soil for the first time in 15 years.
In justifying the expenditure on a 144-bed dormitory at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, the USAF told Congress the building was intended to “house the increase in enlisted personnel as the result of the potential surety mission”, which is jargon typically used by the Pentagon to refer to handling of nuclear weapons, according to experts.
Construction of the dormitory is due to begin in June 2024 and last until February 2026, and is the latest in a series of signs that preparations are under way for the possible return of US nuclear weapons to UK territory.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
The US air force has secured $50m (£39m) funding next year for a project that could pave the way for American nuclear weapons to return to British soil for the first time in 15 years.
In justifying the expenditure on a 144-bed dormitory at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, the USAF told Congress the building was intended to “house the increase in enlisted personnel as the result of the potential surety mission”, which is jargon typically used by the Pentagon to refer to handling of nuclear weapons, according to experts.
Construction of the dormitory is due to begin in June 2024 and last until February 2026, and is the latest in a series of signs that preparations are under way for the possible return of US nuclear weapons to UK territory.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
They may be, they may not be, Genesis only makes reference to man.
As for space travel Voyager 1 and 2 have already travelled beyond the solar system
Is it scarier if they believe it or don't but say it anyway?
Even if that particular one is a spoof it's almost certainly a sock-puppet operation to dispense approved Kremlin talking points and leach them into the West.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
Time for choral evensong?
Nothing so exciting, I do rather like a beautiful choral evensong
One of my most spiritual moments (outside actual theophanies) was listening to a magnficent Anglican evensong in King's College, then walking out into a misty November evening, in Cambridge: the wraiths of the fens winding down the Gothic lanes, the dampness of the air turning everything to illusion, the sounds of tinkling bicycles disppearing into the ghostly mist, along the silvered cobbles. Then I carried the chiming and resonant tunes of Howells and Bach into the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA
Been to the pub (more than one pint there), *and* to the dept too.
And right outside the pub - across the road - is a church built by King Cnut. A thousand years old
I love Cambridge. It is probably the most beautiful small city in the world, and surely the most fascinating
I was perhaps more taken with the round church a bit to the north, near the market.
A Templar church, I believe?
They are often round. Temple in London. Beautiful Garway in remote Herefordshire
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
In my experience atheists often espouse a religious level of certainty about their political beliefs, it is a common trait. A comment that has also stayed with me was one made by a historian, that contemporary politics is best understood as an episode in the longer history of religion.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
Ah, Michael Shellenberger. Friend of Elon Musk. Says he’s spoken to government sources who say the government is in possession of 12 UFOs. Yep, just the guy we should be reading.
The Tories decide the way back to the public's support is to de-regulate. Interesting strategy.
You agree don't you that expensive housing is one of the biggest problems in this country, especially for young people?
Do you think the solution to our housing crisis is to:
A: Build more houses. B: Build fewer houses and tell people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead.
Same net pollution either way.
Forget the party politics, this is something you should completely be supporting. A very rare example of when the Government has put the interests of young people who need housing ahead of old people who think "I've got mine already so what's the problem?"
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
Talking of ancient civilisations, meanwhile, how long have humans been around? Some perhaps few hundred thousand years. Dinosaurs existed for 120m years. Just imagine where (if?) humanity will be in 1m years, let alone 120m years. Bonkers.
Pedant hat.
Dinosaurs are a whole Superorder in traditional Linnean classification. They are represented by something north of 700 species and existed for around 170 million years.
Humans are one species of the Superorder Euarchonta which has itself been around for over 80 million years.
Okey dokey. Still interested in what we will be up to in a million years' time.
I agree. There was an interesting study done about 25 years ago looking at average 'life' expectancies of species.
The bad news is that compared to invertebrates we do pretty badly.
Invertebrate species last on average 7 - 10 million years Vertebrate species last on average 3-5 million years Mammalian species last on average 1-3 million years.
Of course there are plenty of outliers to this. I have seen claims that blue whales have been around for the last 4.5 million years but I am not sure if they would count as the same species as we define them today.
But if we don't wipe ourselves out - and given that as a species we have only been around for aboiut 200,000 years - I reckon there is a decent chance we will still be around as a species in a million years.
And still be arguing about bloody planning laws.
That seems exceedingly unlikely. Given the rate of progress in manipulating DNA (and to excite Leon, we’ve just set AI loose on it), and the evident desire of the species for self improvement, it’s quite likely that whatever we are in even a few centuries’ time won’t be recognisably human.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
Religion is like a penis.
Its OK to have one, and its OK to be proud of it.
But don't wave it around in public and don't ram it down people's throat without their consent.
If only the Roman Catholic Church had followed your guidance.
Now the Roman Catholic church doesn't really unless you have been baptised and confirmed a Roman Catholic.
It is not seeking to make converts like evangelical Christians or Islam
You know the rules! Whenever you read a post from TSE, step back, pause and interpret the smut before you respond earnestly.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
They may be, they may not be, Genesis only makes reference to man.
As for space travel Voyager 1 and 2 have already travelled beyond the solar system
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
Religion is like a penis.
Its OK to have one, and its OK to be proud of it.
But don't wave it around in public and don't ram it down people's throat without their consent.
If only the Roman Catholic Church had followed your guidance.
Now the Roman Catholic church doesn't really unless you have been baptised and confirmed a Roman Catholic.
It is not seeking to make converts like evangelical Christians or Islam
I think you missed the subtlety of TSE's comment. I think (unlike him) he was being rather rude about the habits of a number of priests.
Just spent a sodden bank holiday weekend walking on Exmoor with my eldest son and his boy. Low, grey clouds, relentless drizzle, temperatures in the teens, no sign of the sun. But what country. High moorland, ancient woods, iron age hill forts, rushing rivers and bubbling streams. Immense silences, too, save for the wind and the bird calls. Just magnificent. And all of it made by our brilliant climate. Without the rain and the cool and the gloom, we wouldn’t get the green. That’s too much to sacrifice.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
Religion is like a penis.
Its OK to have one, and its OK to be proud of it.
But don't wave it around in public and don't ram it down people's throat without their consent.
If only the Roman Catholic Church had followed your guidance.
Now the Roman Catholic church doesn't really unless you have been baptised and confirmed a Roman Catholic.
It is not seeking to make converts like evangelical Christians or Islam
I think you missed the subtlety of TSE's comment. I think (unlike him) he was being rather rude about the habits of a number of priests.
TSE's subtlety is of course legendary. Like his modesty...
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
They are regulated businesses that have regulated responsibilities.
If they don't want to take their responsibilities seriously then that should be between them and Ofwat - not people who move into new homes.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Late November and December are the worst for me. Not cold enough to be interesting, just damp and grey. The colours have gone by the end of November and all that is left is just the dregs of the year. Early December the same. We are still in the downward spiral of gloom. Christmas is very much meh and not really something to look forward to.
But by New Year it is fine. We are already on the up with the light and the climate is dryer. The depressing remnants of the previous summer have gone. Cold is not a problem - just wear more clothes. In fact, the colder the better. Feb is one of my favourite months.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
But what gives you the faith? How do you get it? Is it as simple as waking up and thinking "I believe in God/Allah/Thor/Yoda"? What makes you believe, and why?
I heartily recommend Ayahuasca. But you need to get the good stuff. Don't fuck about with fake wizards in Iquitos
Wouldn't 10 pints of Carling and a doner kebab have the same effect and be a bit cheaper?
Zero snob appeal, which is key element of quasi-spiritualism.
Ayahuasca definitely has snob appeal - billionaires do it in Ibiza and Belgravia - but it is certainly NOT "quasi" spiritual. It is properly spiritual. The sacred vine. It has been used in divination and shamanism for many centuries
I an also personally vouch that it is an extraordinarily profound drug, and I've done a lot of different drugs
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
But there is real beauty in bleak.
The worst times are the times of drought. Last summer was horrendous. You could almost physically feel everything drying up, the life being sucked from the earth.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
In my experience atheists often espouse a religious level of certainty about their political beliefs, it is a common trait. A comment that has also stayed with me was one made by a historian, that contemporary politics is best understood as an episode in the longer history of religion.
There are several areas of the origin of life that are still unexplained, for example how the first single celled organisms came to be, and, indeed, what triggered the big bang. So we certainly cannot rule out, absolutely, the involvement of any divine power. You could also add that the evolution of intelligent life on earth over billions of years, given all the events that happened, into ourselves is vanishing unlikely - even if proofable - and so perhaps something else was involved.
However, what makes me sceptical is that virtually every time in history where there has been a void in our knowledge that faith has filled eventually science has stepped in and provided a convincing and evidence-based answer. So if it's happened 1,000 times before (and it has) then religion starts on the back foot.
I am perfectly willing to postulate that there may be a far more intelligent species than our own - that is beyond our comprehension - that goes around seeding asteroids with bacteria it's cooked up and fires them at habitable worlds, but that's probably just as much of a stretch to be honest.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
But there is real beauty in bleak.
The worst times are the times of drought. Last summer was horrendous. You could almost physically feel everything drying up, the life being sucked from the earth.
In winter, you get far more expansive views than you do in summer (generally). I'd much prefer walk 20 miles on a crisp winter's day than a summer's day that is twenty degrees warmer.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but I was told that Yorkshire Water (and Severn Trent) had to agree for development work to go ahead. Perhaps they are only allowed to object at the planning stage in very specific circumstances. I shall ask.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
They can make representations at the planning stage just like any other organisation but they don't have a veto as far as I know. Anglian have a big problem because, as you say, the boreholes are running dry as the aquifers get depleted. We are just extracting too much water and there is not enough rain to recharge them. This then affects the rivers as well.
Anglian are trying to deal with it with a series of large pipelines from the North to the south of their region.
Pesonally I think it would be much better if someone in Government just saw sense and ordered a bloody big new town or city built in North Lincolnshire instead of cramming everyone in around Peterborough.
Just further to this I checked and found this from 2012 which confirms that water companies cannot prevent developments and must supply them with water.
If Anglian need to invest in new treatment facilities or reservoirs then that's what they need to do.
Our population has grown by 20% and they've not invested in a single new reservoir AFAIK let alone enough for millions of extra people. There's absolutely no excuses to stand in the way of homes for people who live here, they just need to take their own responsibilities seriously.
I don't see any reason why private firms can't do that. But if they feel they can't, they should hand the metaphorical keys back and dissolve and return all infrastructure back to the state to find someone who can.
Because they are interested in extracting the maximum cash for the minimum effort, and have been inadequately regulated for over three decades.
The have no competition, and no regulatory incentive, so they take the piss, as monopolies tend to do.
In my experience atheists often espouse a religious level of certainty about their political beliefs, it is a common trait. A comment that has also stayed with me was one made by a historian, that contemporary politics is best understood as an episode in the longer history of religion.
There are several areas of the origin of life that are still unexplained, for example how the first single celled organisms came to be, and, indeed, what triggered the big bang.
Assuming the big bang even happened. You can't get something from nothing.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
They may be, they may not be, Genesis only makes reference to man.
As for space travel Voyager 1 and 2 have already travelled beyond the solar system
Obvious answer. God is a Vorlon.
The God of Genesis is more like a Vogon.
I read that as vegan.
If He was then He clearly didn't mind if His creations were not.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
I also love Autumn. My ability to work and do all the things I love doing goes through the roof as the nights close in. I think I must have reverse SADs
The Tories decide the way back to the public's support is to de-regulate. Interesting strategy.
You agree don't you that expensive housing is one of the biggest problems in this country, especially for young people?
Do you think the solution to our housing crisis is to:
A: Build more houses. B: Build fewer houses and tell people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead.
Same net pollution either way.
Forget the party politics, this is something you should completely be supporting. A very rare example of when the Government has put the interests of young people who need housing ahead of old people who think "I've got mine already so what's the problem?"
True in so far as it goes but there are surely much better ways of encouraging more housebuilding: charging development plots Council Tax as if developed to their planning permission, requiring councils to build council homes, are a couple that spring to mind.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
What I was pointing out was that they have a legal requirement to supply water to all developments and are in breach of their licences if they do not. Developers can seek damages as well if the supply is not provided when required.
Yes they are private companies but even under foreign ownership they are constrained by English law.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
Talking of ancient civilisations, meanwhile, how long have humans been around? Some perhaps few hundred thousand years. Dinosaurs existed for 120m years. Just imagine where (if?) humanity will be in 1m years, let alone 120m years. Bonkers.
Pedant hat.
Dinosaurs are a whole Superorder in traditional Linnean classification. They are represented by something north of 700 species and existed for around 170 million years.
Humans are one species of the Superorder Euarchonta which has itself been around for over 80 million years.
Okey dokey. Still interested in what we will be up to in a million years' time.
I agree. There was an interesting study done about 25 years ago looking at average 'life' expectancies of species.
The bad news is that compared to invertebrates we do pretty badly.
Invertebrate species last on average 7 - 10 million years Vertebrate species last on average 3-5 million years Mammalian species last on average 1-3 million years.
Of course there are plenty of outliers to this. I have seen claims that blue whales have been around for the last 4.5 million years but I am not sure if they would count as the same species as we define them today.
But if we don't wipe ourselves out - and given that as a species we have only been around for aboiut 200,000 years - I reckon there is a decent chance we will still be around as a species in a million years.
And still be arguing about bloody planning laws.
That seems exceedingly unlikely. Given the rate of progress in manipulating DNA (and to excite Leon, we’ve just set AI loose on it), and the evident desire of the species for self improvement, it’s quite likely that whatever we are in even a few centuries’ time won’t be recognisably human.
True. I was just referring to natural* processes. I agree wee are at the point where the previous rules may becoem redundent.
*Though I also get the argument that whatever we do is 'natural' but hopefully you get my point.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
They may be, they may not be, Genesis only makes reference to man.
As for space travel Voyager 1 and 2 have already travelled beyond the solar system
Obvious answer. God is a Vorlon.
The God of Genesis is more like a Vogon.
I read that as vegan.
If He was then He clearly didn't mind if His creations were not.
LOL, the bloodthirsty tyrant God of the Old Testament was absolutely no vegan.
Wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah because he was pissed off, or wiping out almost all life on the planet in a flood because He was in a bad mood is more like what the Vogons would do.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much meat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
Although I can only read the headline, I'll bet that the article from a "private jet travel boss" is entirely objective.
But it's true. You can dispute the detailed numbers on the private jet claim, but pets are REALLY REALLY bad for the environment, and owning one is a monumental act of selfishness. Because you don't NEED a pet
"By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise
Truth-telling about pets can be a painful process but cats and dogs, particularly, are having a devastating impact on the planet"
Not defending pets. Just querying whether the contribution of a "private travel jet boss" in the notoriously factual DT is of any more value than the contribution of, say, Arthur the Alsatian in weighing up the environmental cost of private jets vs. pets.
I imagine he is a tad biased, but his central point is good. Any pet owner is in a bad position to point their accusing, poo-covered, multi-parasitised fingers at anyone else, for enviro-negative behaviour
I read that article and his central claim is that a private jet only emits 2.1 tonnes of carbon each year. This would only be possible if it never flew anywhere.
Probably mixed up "year" with "hour". Easy mistake to make...
It is two tonnes of CO2 per hour, yes, so presumably that is what the mistake is.
When he was questioned, the Luxaviation guy admitted he meant a private jet user - renter - who only took one flight a year. He claimed that is the average
So he bent the numbers quite spectacularly and mendaciously. The more surprising thing for me is that just one dog is worse than a big fuming car
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
But they can't. See previous post.
Why can't they? Its literally their job they signed up to do.
If they can't fulfill their regulated responsibilities then they should be fined accordingly, and if need be go bankrupt.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but I was told that Yorkshire Water (and Severn Trent) had to agree for development work to go ahead. Perhaps they are only allowed to object at the planning stage in very specific circumstances. I shall ask.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
They can make representations at the planning stage just like any other organisation but they don't have a veto as far as I know. Anglian have a big problem because, as you say, the boreholes are running dry as the aquifers get depleted. We are just extracting too much water and there is not enough rain to recharge them. This then affects the rivers as well.
Anglian are trying to deal with it with a series of large pipelines from the North to the south of their region.
Pesonally I think it would be much better if someone in Government just saw sense and ordered a bloody big new town or city built in North Lincolnshire instead of cramming everyone in around Peterborough.
Just further to this I checked and found this from 2012 which confirms that water companies cannot prevent developments and must supply them with water.
If Anglian need to invest in new treatment facilities or reservoirs then that's what they need to do.
Our population has grown by 20% and they've not invested in a single new reservoir AFAIK let alone enough for millions of extra people. There's absolutely no excuses to stand in the way of homes for people who live here, they just need to take their own responsibilities seriously.
I don't see any reason why private firms can't do that. But if they feel they can't, they should hand the metaphorical keys back and dissolve and return all infrastructure back to the state to find someone who can.
Erm no. They have been investing massively in new infrastructure. As I said, they have been building new pipelines to carry water south. One of the problems you have is that much of their region is bloody flat and not ideally suited to large reservoirs. There are not that many valleys you can flood. That said they are building two new reservoirs, one in Lincolnshire and one in the fens.
Good, I'm glad they're investing in infrastructure, that's their responsibility.
Considering our rampant population growth over a generation its a bit little and late perhaps, but better late than never.
If its insufficient, then they need to invest in more.
The simple fact is our population is more than it used to be and is growing annually. That means we need more infrastructure than it used to, and we need more houses than we used to.
A lack of sufficient infrastructure is not an excuse to compound the problem by ensuring there's a lack of sufficient housing. Ensuring two things are lacking is not a solution, when the people are already here.
Though to be fair any sane and sensible government (stop laughing at the back please) would also intervene to make sure that new homes were being built in previously under-developed parts of the UK rather than simply letting more and more homes be built within an hour or so's commute to London.
The whole point of the Government is to facilitate manageable and sustainable (in the old fashioned sense) growth of the economy. In the past this meant actually making some decisions about, for example, the siting of new towns. This is something that seems to have been lacking now for decades.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
They are regulated businesses that have regulated responsibilities.
If they don't want to take their responsibilities seriously then that should be between them and Ofwat - not people who move into new homes.
Why is it only between those parties when some of those utilities have been failing the public for decades, and the regulator has been asleep at the wheel ?
If the Tories are on 30% overall you'd think they'd be on around 40% in a place like Mid Beds which ought to be enough to hold the seat unless the third-placed party gets less than 5% which seems a bit unlikely at the moment.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
Time for choral evensong?
Nothing so exciting, I do rather like a beautiful choral evensong
One of my most spiritual moments (outside actual theophanies) was listening to a magnficent Anglican evensong in King's College, then walking out into a misty November evening, in Cambridge: the wraiths of the fens winding down the Gothic lanes, the dampness of the air turning everything to illusion, the sounds of tinkling bicycles disppearing into the ghostly mist, along the silvered cobbles. Then I carried the chiming and resonant tunes of Howells and Bach into the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA
Been to the pub (more than one pint there), *and* to the dept too.
And right outside the pub - across the road - is a church built by King Cnut. A thousand years old
I love Cambridge. It is probably the most beautiful small city in the world, and surely the most fascinating
I was perhaps more taken with the round church a bit to the north, near the market.
One of just a handful of round medieval ones in England. I think I have been to them all. Northampton, Temple, and Little Maplestead.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but I was told that Yorkshire Water (and Severn Trent) had to agree for development work to go ahead. Perhaps they are only allowed to object at the planning stage in very specific circumstances. I shall ask.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
They can make representations at the planning stage just like any other organisation but they don't have a veto as far as I know. Anglian have a big problem because, as you say, the boreholes are running dry as the aquifers get depleted. We are just extracting too much water and there is not enough rain to recharge them. This then affects the rivers as well.
Anglian are trying to deal with it with a series of large pipelines from the North to the south of their region.
Pesonally I think it would be much better if someone in Government just saw sense and ordered a bloody big new town or city built in North Lincolnshire instead of cramming everyone in around Peterborough.
Just further to this I checked and found this from 2012 which confirms that water companies cannot prevent developments and must supply them with water.
If Anglian need to invest in new treatment facilities or reservoirs then that's what they need to do.
Our population has grown by 20% and they've not invested in a single new reservoir AFAIK let alone enough for millions of extra people. There's absolutely no excuses to stand in the way of homes for people who live here, they just need to take their own responsibilities seriously.
I don't see any reason why private firms can't do that. But if they feel they can't, they should hand the metaphorical keys back and dissolve and return all infrastructure back to the state to find someone who can.
Erm no. They have been investing massively in new infrastructure. As I said, they have been building new pipelines to carry water south. One of the problems you have is that much of their region is bloody flat and not ideally suited to large reservoirs. There are not that many valleys you can flood. That said they are building two new reservoirs, one in Lincolnshire and one in the fens.
Good, I'm glad they're investing in infrastructure, that's their responsibility.
Considering our rampant population growth over a generation its a bit little and late perhaps, but better late than never.
If its insufficient, then they need to invest in more.
The simple fact is our population is more than it used to be and is growing annually. That means we need more infrastructure than it used to, and we need more houses than we used to.
A lack of sufficient infrastructure is not an excuse to compound the problem by ensuring there's a lack of sufficient housing. Ensuring two things are lacking is not a solution, when the people are already here.
Though to be fair any sane and sensible government (stop laughing at the back please) would also intervene to make sure that new homes were being built in previously under-developed parts of the UK rather than simply letting more and more homes be built within an hour or so's commute to London.
The whole point of the Government is to facilitate manageable and sustainable (in the old fashioned sense) growth of the economy. In the past this meant actually making some decisions about, for example, the siting of new towns. This is something that seems to have been lacking now for decades.
As a North Western YIMBY I'm all in favour of investment up here, but it shouldn't only be here.
If there's been in a generation close to a 20% population growth across the country then every region should see close to 20% population growth, not just some of them. And as a free country people should be free to choose where they want to live.
I'm all in favour of immigration but it needs to be matched with investment and construction. For too long governments of all parties have been happy to encourage high migration so people pay taxes to support pensions etc, but without commensurate investment to match. There hasn't been a corresponding expansion in housing, or roads, or rail, or schools, or water treatment or reservoirs to match.
If you don't want to invest in infrastructure, then we need to stop population growth. Personally I think that investing in infrastructure and continuing with population growth is better - and even if we stop population growth we still need to resolve the backlog of construction that hasn't occurred for population growth that's already happened.
New towns absolutely should be a thing, along with new motorways that the new towns can use or be sited off.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
I've had conversations with people who insist the world is coming to an end because of x, and the moment you convince them that x is unlikely, they immediately say the world is coming to an end anyway because of y.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much meat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
Although I can only read the headline, I'll bet that the article from a "private jet travel boss" is entirely objective.
But it's true. You can dispute the detailed numbers on the private jet claim, but pets are REALLY REALLY bad for the environment, and owning one is a monumental act of selfishness. Because you don't NEED a pet
"By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise
Truth-telling about pets can be a painful process but cats and dogs, particularly, are having a devastating impact on the planet"
Not defending pets. Just querying whether the contribution of a "private travel jet boss" in the notoriously factual DT is of any more value than the contribution of, say, Arthur the Alsatian in weighing up the environmental cost of private jets vs. pets.
I imagine he is a tad biased, but his central point is good. Any pet owner is in a bad position to point their accusing, poo-covered, multi-parasitised fingers at anyone else, for enviro-negative behaviour
I read that article and his central claim is that a private jet only emits 2.1 tonnes of carbon each year. This would only be possible if it never flew anywhere.
Probably mixed up "year" with "hour". Easy mistake to make...
It is two tonnes of CO2 per hour, yes, so presumably that is what the mistake is.
When he was questioned, the Luxaviation guy admitted he meant a private jet user - renter - who only took one flight a year. He claimed that is the average
So he bent the numbers quite spectacularly and mendaciously. The more surprising thing for me is that just one dog is worse than a big fuming car
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
They are regulated businesses that have regulated responsibilities.
If they don't want to take their responsibilities seriously then that should be between them and Ofwat - not people who move into new homes.
Why is it only between those parties when some of those utilities have been failing the public for decades, and the regulator has been asleep at the wheel ?
These are monopoly public services.
Which other parties should it be between?
If Ofwat are asleep at the wheel then that is the government's fault. They're responsible for setting and assigning the regulators responsibilities and should be ensuring that it is done properly.
Comments
An article “We are all paying the terrible price for lockdown” (Nov, 19) reported that pandemic related measures in Sweden cost 60 billion kroner in 2020 and 2021, a tenth of the UK figure for Covid-related spending. This was misleading. The 60 billion kroner related only to business support. This correction has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/telegraph-corrections-and-clarifications/
As for space travel Voyager 1 and 2 have already travelled beyond the solar system
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/january-web-only/genealogical-adam-eve-evolution-joshua-swamidass.html
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
Still nowhere near good enough overall with regards to construction, but this is a good baby step.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17680132
That's a great idea.
One of them, I'm afraid you're beyond redemption, but if it was the hallucinogen we might forgive you.
However, also suspect it is chiefly designed to
> raise much-needed campaign cash from interests keen on deregulation for fun & profit.
> raise employment/consultant prospects of Tory ministers, MPs, apparatchiks and other hangers-on after the Giant Shithammer falls at next GE.
Correction: pseudo-spiritualism
If Anglian need to invest in new treatment facilities or reservoirs then that's what they need to do.
Our population has grown by 20% and they've not invested in a single new reservoir AFAIK let alone enough for millions of extra people. There's absolutely no excuses to stand in the way of homes for people who live here, they just need to take their own responsibilities seriously.
I don't see any reason why private firms can't do that. But if they feel they can't, they should hand the metaphorical keys back and dissolve and return all infrastructure back to the state to find someone who can.
I an also personally vouch that it is an extraordinarily profound drug, and I've done a lot of different drugs
Going back 3 billion years, none of your ancestors were wiped out by asteroids, snowball earth, plague, global warming, or Dino looking for a snack. I think it depends on how much legal weight the 'sustainability' criteria have prior to planning approval and who gets to decide that the water company are wrong if they object. This is the bit I'm not 100% sure of.
But if Anglian Water find themselves unable to stop development then obviously it seems that objection can be overridden.
The special counsel’s interest in Rudy’s drinking could play a role in undermining one of Trump’s key legal defenses
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office has repeatedly grilled witnesses about Rudy Giuliani’s drinking on and after election day, investigating whether Donald Trump was knowingly relying on an inebriated attorney while trying to overturn a presidential election.
In their questioning of multiple witnesses, Smith’s team of federal investigators have asked questions about how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power, according to a source who’s been in the room with Smith’s team, one witness’s attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter.
The special counsel’s team has also asked these witnesses if Trump had ever gossiped with them about Giuliani’s drinking habits, and if Trump had ever claimed Giuliani’s drinking impacted his decision making or judgment. Federal investigators have inquired about whether the then-president was warned, including after Election Night 2020, about Giuliani’s allegedly excessive drinking. They have also asked certain witnesses if Trump was told that the former New York mayor was giving him post-election legal and strategic advice while inebriated.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/rudy-giuliani-jack-smith-donald-trump-jan6-1234814129/
Pffff. God I hate Autumn
But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts.
Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
Its OK to have one, and its OK to be proud of it.
But don't wave it around in public and don't ram it down people's throat without their consent.
The Vatican has sought to calm the uproar that erupted after Pope Francis praised Russia’s imperialist past during a video conference with Russian Catholics youths, insisting that he never intended to encourage modern-day Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said on Tuesday that Francis merely wanted to highlight the positive aspects of Russia’s spiritual and cultural history when he praised Russia’s imperial rulers Peter and Catherine the Great, encouraging young people to remember that past and hailing their way of “being Russian”.
Francis “certainly didn’t want to exalt imperialistic logic or government personalities, who were cited to indicate certain historic periods of reference”, Mr Bruni said in a statement.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/vatican-seeks-to-calm-outrage-over-pope-s-praise-for-russia-s-imperial-past/ar-AA1fVusN?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=5011dddc45534c72ac5dcda022f6d23a&ei=5
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
I'd say Rudy Giuliani is a functioning alcoholic, but only if the pass mark is set at 50%.
Considering our rampant population growth over a generation its a bit little and late perhaps, but better late than never.
If its insufficient, then they need to invest in more.
The simple fact is our population is more than it used to be and is growing annually. That means we need more infrastructure than it used to, and we need more houses than we used to.
A lack of sufficient infrastructure is not an excuse to compound the problem by ensuring there's a lack of sufficient housing. Ensuring two things are lacking is not a solution, when the people are already here.
Recently saw a hilarious re-run of a "Murder She Wrote" episode, where main foil was an absurdly publicity-hungry and comically inept district attorney in NYC, clearly modeled (including casting) on Rudy G. when he was US attorney for the Southern District of New York.
They are often round. Temple in London. Beautiful Garway in remote Herefordshire
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/england/eastern-england/cambridge/attractions/round-church/a/poi-sig/1014658/358889
It is not seeking to make converts like evangelical Christians or Islam
SSI - condolences to the hordes of PBers who bet the farm on this hot POTUS prospect.
In justifying the expenditure on a 144-bed dormitory at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, the USAF told Congress the building was intended to “house the increase in enlisted personnel as the result of the potential surety mission”, which is jargon typically used by the Pentagon to refer to handling of nuclear weapons, according to experts.
Construction of the dormitory is due to begin in June 2024 and last until February 2026, and is the latest in a series of signs that preparations are under way for the possible return of US nuclear weapons to UK territory.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/29/surety-mission-50m-airbase-project-could-pave-way-for-uk-to-host-us-nuclear-weapons
My god, that was grim. Hard to believe that actually happened
The threat vector has changed.
For more on this and other news visit http://trib.al/Rx0iR33
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1696579457434230896
RIP
https://www.roundtowers.org.uk/
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug.
Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh.
Only January is truly bleak.
Do you think the solution to our housing crisis is to:
A: Build more houses.
B: Build fewer houses and tell people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead.
Same net pollution either way.
Forget the party politics, this is something you should completely be supporting. A very rare example of when the Government has put the interests of young people who need housing ahead of old people who think "I've got mine already so what's the problem?"
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
Given the rate of progress in manipulating DNA (and to excite Leon, we’ve just set AI loose on it), and the evident desire of the species for self improvement, it’s quite likely that whatever we are in even a few centuries’ time won’t be recognisably human.
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
If they don't want to take their responsibilities seriously then that should be between them and Ofwat - not people who move into new homes.
But by New Year it is fine. We are already on the up with the light and the climate is dryer. The depressing remnants of the previous summer have gone. Cold is not a problem - just wear more clothes. In fact, the colder the better. Feb is one of my favourite months.
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
The worst times are the times of drought. Last summer was horrendous. You could almost physically feel everything drying up, the life being sucked from the earth.
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
However, what makes me sceptical is that virtually every time in history where there has been a void in our knowledge that faith has filled eventually science has stepped in and provided a convincing and evidence-based answer. So if it's happened 1,000 times before (and it has) then religion starts on the back foot.
I am perfectly willing to postulate that there may be a far more intelligent species than our own - that is beyond our comprehension - that goes around seeding asteroids with bacteria it's cooked up and fires them at habitable worlds, but that's probably just as much of a stretch to be honest.
The have no competition, and no regulatory incentive, so they take the piss, as monopolies tend to do.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/aug/29/roisin-murphy-apologises-puberty-blocker-trans
If He was then He clearly didn't mind if His creations were not.
Carpe diem.
Yes they are private companies but even under foreign ownership they are constrained by English law.
*Though I also get the argument that whatever we do is 'natural' but hopefully you get my point.
Wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah because he was pissed off, or wiping out almost all life on the planet in a flood because He was in a bad mood is more like what the Vogons would do.
If they can't fulfill their regulated responsibilities then they should be fined accordingly, and if need be go bankrupt.
The whole point of the Government is to facilitate manageable and sustainable (in the old fashioned sense) growth of the economy. In the past this meant actually making some decisions about, for example, the siting of new towns. This is something that seems to have been lacking now for decades.
These are monopoly public services.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Crusades connections.
If there's been in a generation close to a 20% population growth across the country then every region should see close to 20% population growth, not just some of them. And as a free country people should be free to choose where they want to live.
I'm all in favour of immigration but it needs to be matched with investment and construction. For too long governments of all parties have been happy to encourage high migration so people pay taxes to support pensions etc, but without commensurate investment to match. There hasn't been a corresponding expansion in housing, or roads, or rail, or schools, or water treatment or reservoirs to match.
If you don't want to invest in infrastructure, then we need to stop population growth. Personally I think that investing in infrastructure and continuing with population growth is better - and even if we stop population growth we still need to resolve the backlog of construction that hasn't occurred for population growth that's already happened.
New towns absolutely should be a thing, along with new motorways that the new towns can use or be sited off.
If Ofwat are asleep at the wheel then that is the government's fault. They're responsible for setting and assigning the regulators responsibilities and should be ensuring that it is done properly.
No sniggering at that.