Am I missing something about the escaped prisoner? They keep banging on about his military training and how it will help him as if he’s Andy McNab with intense evasion training and super strength and fighting skills.
As far as I can see he did a few years in the Signals. Have I missed he was special forces or do they train signallers how to go undercover in cities and live off their wits these days?
I was listening to a news report yesterday where they kept saying that they thought he was still in the South West London area, as though travelling in and out of South West London was somehow difficult.
I guess it’s in the Prison’s interests to make him out to be a real life Jason Bourne. Maybe also the police as when they catch him they can point out how wonderful they are, nobody evades them, except their own.
Quite. There are certain things that humans find beautiful in buildings, relating to inherited ideals of safety, plenty, security. Ornament, symmetry, natural materials like wood and stone, deep set windows, lush vegetation etc. Brutalist architecture is demonstrably fuck ugly, that's why brutalist architects famously choose to live in Tudor mansions.
I don't think you can safely generalise about all humans. The place I must enjoyed living in was on the top floor of this:
- which I suppose you'd see as rather brutalist? Airy flat with two balconies, clean lines devoid of fiddly ornaments, no plants but spacious, and still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable.
Looks pretty nice to me.
One think some other countries do (in my experience Denmark, particularly) is not-super-high-rise blocks of flats that are functional but pleasant, surrounded by lots of green space with parks just round the corner. Had some friends living in a similar looking block in Copenhagen and it was lovely.
Here, we tend to think blocks of flats and think super high density, cramming them in close together with nothing but depressing concrete walkways in between.
Rental market: a friend of mine has a small rental business. He's sent me the email below on the state of things.
Having little knowledge in this area - do any of you guys have any comments? @MattW perhaps.
“Landlords are selling up like never before due to the increase in mortgage rates, and the new EPC rules that are due to come into force – meaning that you will not be able to let a property unless the EPC rating is minimum “C” – it is “E” at the moment.
Most of the old terrace houses struggle to meet “E” – God knows how much it will cost to reach “C” – there are no cavity walls to pump foam insulation into – so all the walls would have to be lined inside with solid insulation panels. Can you imagine the cost of just that one work item – and of course – there will have to be insulation laid under the floors etc etc to reach “C”.
The property will be uninhabitable during the work – if you can find someone to do it - so no rental income either.
Then there is the outlawing of gas boilers – this bill has just passed through the commons with only 61 votes against, so will become law.
If you are forced to go down the route of an air heat pump, you will have a big noisy heat exchanger on your house wall and will have to increase the size of your radiators by at least 50% to reach the same temperature that you enjoy now – and may well have to heat your water using electricity.
The only future hope is the development of hydrogen boilers that will fit in place of the existing gas boiler, but the whole delivery system through the mains gas supply pipes will have to be adapted.”
Strange recurrence of weirdo twitter/X accounts (eg 10 followers, blue tick) making allegations about Chris Packham’s financial arrangements. He’s obviously ruffled a few feathers.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
Mogg is extremely 'something'. Who could think Murray, a defender of Tommy Robinson, exponent of the Great Replacement theory and believer in the concept of Cultural Marxism an extremist?
Rental market: a friend of mine has a small rental business. He's sent me the email below on the state of things.
Having little knowledge in this area - do any of you guys have any comments? @MattW perhaps.
“Landlords are selling up like never before due to the increase in mortgage rates, and the new EPC rules that are due to come into force – meaning that you will not be able to let a property unless the EPC rating is minimum “C” – it is “E” at the moment.
Most of the old terrace houses struggle to meet “E” – God knows how much it will cost to reach “C” – there are no cavity walls to pump foam insulation into – so all the walls would have to be lined inside with solid insulation panels. Can you imagine the cost of just that one work item – and of course – there will have to be insulation laid under the floors etc etc to reach “C”.
The property will be uninhabitable during the work – if you can find someone to do it - so no rental income either.
Then there is the outlawing of gas boilers – this bill has just passed through the commons with only 61 votes against, so will become law.
If you are forced to go down the route of an air heat pump, you will have a big noisy heat exchanger on your house wall and will have to increase the size of your radiators by at least 50% to reach the same temperature that you enjoy now – and may well have to heat your water using electricity.
The only future hope is the development of hydrogen boilers that will fit in place of the existing gas boiler, but the whole delivery system through the mains gas supply pipes will have to be adapted.”
The gas boiler ban only affects new builds from 2025. There is an awful lot of anti net zero scaremongering going on at the moment.
I'm becoming a landlord from Sunday (forgive me - I'm going on a career break and letting it out to a friend) and I hadn't realised that the bank dictates the the rent. Mine is an additional 1% on my rate and 125% of the mortgage payment. So the cost does not fall on landlords at all, and in Edinburgh the demand is huge so you will easily find a tenant.
Mogg is extremely 'something'. Who could think Murray, a defender of Tommy Robinson, exponent of the Great Replacement theory and believer in the concept of Cultural Marxism an extremist?
So he's an extremist by association?
I'd say espousing extremist views is a bit of a tell, but dyor by all means.
Am I missing something about the escaped prisoner? They keep banging on about his military training and how it will help him as if he’s Andy McNab with intense evasion training and super strength and fighting skills.
As far as I can see he did a few years in the Signals. Have I missed he was special forces or do they train signallers how to go undercover in cities and live off their wits these days?
I was listening to a news report yesterday where they kept saying that they thought he was still in the South West London area, as though travelling in and out of South West London was somehow difficult.
I guess it’s in the Prison’s interests to make him out to be a real life Jason Bourne. Maybe also the police as when they catch him they can point out how wonderful they are, nobody evades them, except their own.
James Earl Ray, who murdered Martin Luther King, had escaped from prison hiding in a bakery truck leaving Missouri State Penitentiary. BTW, Hampton Sides book on this, Hellhound on his Trail is a tremendous read.
Rental market: a friend of mine has a small rental business. He's sent me the email below on the state of things.
Having little knowledge in this area - do any of you guys have any comments? @MattW perhaps.
“Landlords are selling up like never before due to the increase in mortgage rates, and the new EPC rules that are due to come into force – meaning that you will not be able to let a property unless the EPC rating is minimum “C” – it is “E” at the moment.
Most of the old terrace houses struggle to meet “E” – God knows how much it will cost to reach “C” – there are no cavity walls to pump foam insulation into – so all the walls would have to be lined inside with solid insulation panels. Can you imagine the cost of just that one work item – and of course – there will have to be insulation laid under the floors etc etc to reach “C”.
The property will be uninhabitable during the work – if you can find someone to do it - so no rental income either.
Then there is the outlawing of gas boilers – this bill has just passed through the commons with only 61 votes against, so will become law.
If you are forced to go down the route of an air heat pump, you will have a big noisy heat exchanger on your house wall and will have to increase the size of your radiators by at least 50% to reach the same temperature that you enjoy now – and may well have to heat your water using electricity.
The only future hope is the development of hydrogen boilers that will fit in place of the existing gas boiler, but the whole delivery system through the mains gas supply pipes will have to be adapted.”
The gas boiler ban only affects new builds from 2025. There is an awful lot of anti net zero scaremongering going on at the moment.
I'm becoming a landlord from Sunday (forgive me - I'm going on a career break and letting it out to a friend) and I hadn't realised that the bank dictates the the rent. Mine is an additional 1% on my rate and 125% of the mortgage payment. So the cost does not fall on landlords at all, and in Edinburgh the demand is huge so you will easily find a tenant.
"bank dictates the the rent" ? Did you mean the interest rate?
Rental market: a friend of mine has a small rental business. He's sent me the email below on the state of things.
Having little knowledge in this area - do any of you guys have any comments? @MattW perhaps.
“Landlords are selling up like never before due to the increase in mortgage rates, and the new EPC rules that are due to come into force – meaning that you will not be able to let a property unless the EPC rating is minimum “C” – it is “E” at the moment.
Most of the old terrace houses struggle to meet “E” – God knows how much it will cost to reach “C” – there are no cavity walls to pump foam insulation into – so all the walls would have to be lined inside with solid insulation panels. Can you imagine the cost of just that one work item – and of course – there will have to be insulation laid under the floors etc etc to reach “C”.
The property will be uninhabitable during the work – if you can find someone to do it - so no rental income either.
Then there is the outlawing of gas boilers – this bill has just passed through the commons with only 61 votes against, so will become law.
If you are forced to go down the route of an air heat pump, you will have a big noisy heat exchanger on your house wall and will have to increase the size of your radiators by at least 50% to reach the same temperature that you enjoy now – and may well have to heat your water using electricity.
The only future hope is the development of hydrogen boilers that will fit in place of the existing gas boiler, but the whole delivery system through the mains gas supply pipes will have to be adapted.”
The gas boiler ban only affects new builds from 2025. There is an awful lot of anti net zero scaremongering going on at the moment.
I'm becoming a landlord from Sunday (forgive me - I'm going on a career break and letting it out to a friend) and I hadn't realised that the bank dictates the the rent. Mine is an additional 1% on my rate and 125% of the mortgage payment. So the cost does not fall on landlords at all, and in Edinburgh the demand is huge so you will easily find a tenant.
"bank dictates the the rent" ? Did you mean the interest rate?
Nope. They have a copy of my rental agreement and have checked that I'm not paying my tenants utility bills either.
This is a consent to let, not sure if it is any different for a buy to let.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Mogg is extremely 'something'. Who could think Murray, a defender of Tommy Robinson, exponent of the Great Replacement theory and believer in the concept of Cultural Marxism an extremist?
So he's an extremist by association?
I'd say espousing extremist views is a bit of a tell, but dyor by all means.
It wasn't clear from your comment whether you were referring to Tommy Robinson or Douglas Murray.
Belief in Scottish independence could be classified as an extremist view. In fact anything can be put in the extremist box if it upsets the powerful and influential. The term has a chilling effect on political debate which is quite deliberate, and I'd expect anyone who is political and has some nous to avoid using it with relish, if not condemn it. But hey, you do you.
Rental market: a friend of mine has a small rental business. He's sent me the email below on the state of things.
Having little knowledge in this area - do any of you guys have any comments? @MattW perhaps.
“Landlords are selling up like never before due to the increase in mortgage rates, and the new EPC rules that are due to come into force – meaning that you will not be able to let a property unless the EPC rating is minimum “C” – it is “E” at the moment.
Most of the old terrace houses struggle to meet “E” – God knows how much it will cost to reach “C” – there are no cavity walls to pump foam insulation into – so all the walls would have to be lined inside with solid insulation panels. Can you imagine the cost of just that one work item – and of course – there will have to be insulation laid under the floors etc etc to reach “C”.
The property will be uninhabitable during the work – if you can find someone to do it - so no rental income either.
Then there is the outlawing of gas boilers – this bill has just passed through the commons with only 61 votes against, so will become law.
If you are forced to go down the route of an air heat pump, you will have a big noisy heat exchanger on your house wall and will have to increase the size of your radiators by at least 50% to reach the same temperature that you enjoy now – and may well have to heat your water using electricity.
The only future hope is the development of hydrogen boilers that will fit in place of the existing gas boiler, but the whole delivery system through the mains gas supply pipes will have to be adapted.”
The gas boiler ban only affects new builds from 2025. There is an awful lot of anti net zero scaremongering going on at the moment.
I'm becoming a landlord from Sunday (forgive me - I'm going on a career break and letting it out to a friend) and I hadn't realised that the bank dictates the the rent. Mine is an additional 1% on my rate and 125% of the mortgage payment. So the cost does not fall on landlords at all, and in Edinburgh the demand is huge so you will easily find a tenant.
"bank dictates the the rent" ? Did you mean the interest rate?
Nope. They have a copy of my rental agreement and have checked that I'm not paying my tenants utility bills either.
This is a consent to let, not sure if it is any different for a buy to let.
Business costs are passed on to the consumer. In related news, water is wet.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
Mogg is extremely 'something'. Who could think Murray, a defender of Tommy Robinson, exponent of the Great Replacement theory and believer in the concept of Cultural Marxism an extremist?
So he's an extremist by association?
I'd say espousing extremist views is a bit of a tell, but dyor by all means.
It wasn't clear from your comment whether you were referring to Tommy Robinson or Douglas Murray.
Belief in Scottish independence could be classified as an extremist view. In fact anything can be put in the extremist box if it upsets the powerful and influential. The term has a chilling effect on political debate which is quite deliberate, and I'd expect anyone who is political and has some nous to avoid using it with relish, if not condemn it. But hey, you do you.
So in 2 posts you've gone from suggesting Murray was unfairly tainted by association with someone holding extreme views to reframing these views as being not extreme? Golly.
Never fear, there's not the slightest chance of anyone but me doing me.
Elon Musk ordered Starlink to be turned off during Ukraine offensive, book says
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk-ordered-starlink-turned-off-ukraine-offensive-biography ...The biography, due out on Tuesday, alleges Musk ordered Starlink engineers to turn off service in the area of the attack because of his concern that Vladimir Putin would respond with nuclear weapons to a Ukrainian attack on Russian-occupied Crimea. He is reported to have said that Ukraine was “going too far” in threatening to inflict a “strategic defeat” on the Kremlin.
Musk’s threats to withdraw Starlink communications at various stages of the conflict have been previously reported, but this is the first time it has been alleged he cut off Ukrainian forces in the middle of a specific operation.
The date of the would-be attack was not specified. Musk reportedly referred to it as a “mini Pearl Harbor”, although Ukrainian forces were operating within their internationally recognised territorial waters...
There is a whiff of rancid Chornoye More caviar about this story. Why would an "armed submarine drone" need Starlink? It uses Ku band which obviously doesn't work underwater. You can't use it for positioning with any reliability or accuracy on a moving vehicle. An autonomous vehicle, as the story states, would use some commercial IMU/INS or maybe even ArduPilot in times of true desperation not a continuous Internet link.
There's also the possibility that Musk got his instructions from elsewhere. The US does like to fiddle with the controls when fine tuning the Ukrainian offensive capability.
So you're saying that the story is bogus on a technical level anyway...but provide an explanation for why it wouldn't be Elon's fault regardless even if it is true?
I don't really see why the latter is necessary as a theory if the former is there. I mean, if you're correct then it's just slander at Elon, no need to speculate about him secretly being an agent of the Biden administration.
Needless speculation is the entire point of this site.
I'm just saying the information presented in the story doesn't make a lot of sense.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
Mogg is extremely 'something'. Who could think Murray, a defender of Tommy Robinson, exponent of the Great Replacement theory and believer in the concept of Cultural Marxism an extremist?
So he's an extremist by association?
JRM is an extreme bellend who is extremely useless*, but that's about it. Murray is on the bubble of nutjobbery but walks the line on it and makes a living from his views. Who knows what he actually believes.
Lots of action on the Betfair market on mid-Beds - there was briefly crossover in the Lab/Lib price which then reversed, but basically all 3 parties are heading for the 3 price that I've been predicting for a while. I can't help feeling that it's the Tory price that's too long at 3.4 - they seem to me to have a fair chance if the non-Tory vote splits.
Note: I have no personal knowledge apart from the daily updates from the Labour campaign (basically 3 canvass sessions a day plus leafleting). FWIW I think the Tories should be narrow favourites followed by Labour - the LibDem price seems to me based on projection of previous by-elections where they were generally conceded to be the non-Tory option. I don't see them winning from 12% without a massive Labour tactical vote which just seems unlikely in the light of the level of Labour activity. But Labour will find it tough for the converse reason, even starting from 22%.
And contariwise, Mr Palmer. If it appears on the ground that Labour are in the lead with the Lib Dems second, then it could well be the Tory vote that is squeezed. And so the Lib Dems win....
I think Mr Palmer is putting his faith on the result of the 2019 election, when the polarisation of the vote on the question of undoing Brexit led a lot of people into voting Labour. Not going to happen again....
Elon Musk ordered Starlink to be turned off during Ukraine offensive, book says
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk-ordered-starlink-turned-off-ukraine-offensive-biography ...The biography, due out on Tuesday, alleges Musk ordered Starlink engineers to turn off service in the area of the attack because of his concern that Vladimir Putin would respond with nuclear weapons to a Ukrainian attack on Russian-occupied Crimea. He is reported to have said that Ukraine was “going too far” in threatening to inflict a “strategic defeat” on the Kremlin.
Musk’s threats to withdraw Starlink communications at various stages of the conflict have been previously reported, but this is the first time it has been alleged he cut off Ukrainian forces in the middle of a specific operation.
The date of the would-be attack was not specified. Musk reportedly referred to it as a “mini Pearl Harbor”, although Ukrainian forces were operating within their internationally recognised territorial waters...
There is a whiff of rancid Chornoye More caviar about this story. Why would an "armed submarine drone" need Starlink? It uses Ku band which obviously doesn't work underwater. You can't use it for positioning with any reliability or accuracy on a moving vehicle. An autonomous vehicle, as the story states, would use some commercial IMU/INS or maybe even ArduPilot in times of true desperation not a continuous Internet link.
There's also the possibility that Musk got his instructions from elsewhere. The US does like to fiddle with the controls when fine tuning the Ukrainian offensive capability.
So you're saying that the story is bogus on a technical level anyway...but provide an explanation for why it wouldn't be Elon's fault regardless even if it is true?
I don't really see why the latter is necessary as a theory if the former is there. I mean, if you're correct then it's just slander at Elon, no need to speculate about him secretly being an agent of the Biden administration.
Needless speculation is the entire point of this site.
I'm just saying the information presented in the story doesn't make a lot of sense.
The Ukrainians are looking at creating submersible drones. All the speedboat drones they have used so far have Starlink antenna on them
The issue with Starlink is actually quite complex - in one legal view, allowing Starlink to be used as an integral part of a weapon system, could mean that Starlink becomes a controlled export item. As in a Starlink terminal becomes classified as a munition.
One way round this is the separation of military use to a specific and separate contract type.
EDIT - a submersible drone that comes to the surface for updates is a plausible idea. I've wondered whether the next stage in the evolution of the speedboat drones is one where they ballast themselves down to run awash or below the surface. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_David
Mid Beds: If you think (as I do) that the country is psyching up to give Labour a thumping majority at the GE it follows that they will win this byelection. I'm on at 3.7. Happy with that price. Head and heart aligned on this one. Always nice when that happens.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
And the survey explicitly refers to women's experience of the menopause. But this does not end at age 55 and in some cases has not even started then.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
And the survey explicitly refers to women's experience of the menopause. But this does not end at age 55 and in some cases has not even started then.
I would imagine its a number where 'most' women have had the menopause. Biology is bloody difficult - everyone is different, so finding a cut off line is not simple.
Strange recurrence of weirdo twitter/X accounts (eg 10 followers, blue tick) making allegations about Chris Packham’s financial arrangements. He’s obviously ruffled a few feathers.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods how they prefer to access contraceptive services how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods how they prefer to access contraceptive services how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
I assume from this you are over 55...
Its not about people not counting. Its trying to apply a sensible cut-off point. Not everything is conspiracy, or cock-up.
Specifically "Menopause is when your periods stop due to lower hormone levels. It usually affects women between the ages of 45 and 55, but it can happen earlier."
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
The units are actually maisonettes so they lack the one redeeming feature of a flat - no more stairs to climb once you're home. And, of course, the interiors are snapped with a wide-angle lens that would make a phone box look like a circus tent. Trellick was conceived as a high-density roost for proles and so it remains.
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
I've not listened yet. Best Stones single since...?
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods how they prefer to access contraceptive services how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
Big advantage of doing that is that you pick up the outliers. As mentioned earlier biological surveys quite often have a big range, because life itself is variable!
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
The units are actually maisonettes so they lack the one redeeming feature of a flat - no more stairs to climb once you're home. And, of course, the interiors are snapped with a wide-angle lens that would make a phone box look like a circus tent. Trellick was conceived as a high-density roost for proles and so it remains.
I recall going to meet some friends of a friend in an especially hideous block that had been turned into private housing. Near Hampstead.
The flat in question had a double height living room. The bedrooms/bathroom were off a gallery upstairs - the gallery opened onto the living space. The kitchen area was directly below the gallery.
It certainly gave a sense of vast space. Though the owner said that changing light bulbs was an absolute pain. He was rather interested by my suggestion of lower able light fittings in the style of the old chandeliers that you could lower to light the candles.
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
With the chorus “Angry, don’t get angry with me…” it will surely be adopted by Sunak for his GE campaign tour…
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods how they prefer to access contraceptive services how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
I assume from this you are over 55...
Its not about people not counting. Its trying to apply a sensible cut-off point. Not everything is conspiracy, or cock-up.
Specifically "Menopause is when your periods stop due to lower hormone levels. It usually affects women between the ages of 45 and 55, but it can happen earlier."
So maybe turn your ire on the NHS...
There are women who have babies late. There are women who have the menopause late. If they want to know about women's reproductive health and the reality at all ages they should ask women not apply an arbitrary cut off age which will inevitably exclude information that they need to know.
And yes I will be writing to the department which has commissioned this survey.
Though with little expectation of any sense from them.
In other news North East London NHS Foundation Trust is being charged with corporate manslaughter and a ward manager with gross negligence manslaughter over the death of a woman in 2015.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
The units are actually maisonettes so they lack the one redeeming feature of a flat - no more stairs to climb once you're home. And, of course, the interiors are snapped with a wide-angle lens that would make a phone box look like a circus tent. Trellick was conceived as a high-density roost for proles and so it remains.
I recall going to meet some friends of a friend in an especially hideous block that had been turned into private housing. Near Hampstead.
The flat in question had a double height living room. The bedrooms/bathroom were off a gallery upstairs - the gallery opened onto the living space. The kitchen area was directly below the gallery.
It certainly gave a sense of vast space. Though the owner said that changing light bulbs was an absolute pain. He was rather interested by my suggestion of lower able light fittings in the style of the old chandeliers that you could lower to light the candles.
In-laws place is like that. Difficult to decorate and curtains are horrendously expensive, because they're twice the length of normal ones!
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
The units are actually maisonettes so they lack the one redeeming feature of a flat - no more stairs to climb once you're home. And, of course, the interiors are snapped with a wide-angle lens that would make a phone box look like a circus tent. Trellick was conceived as a high-density roost for proles and so it remains.
Have you ever seen an Estate Agent interior shot *not* snapped with a wide-angle lens? At 95m2 the flat is larger than the average UK home, and materially larger than the average new build. I wouldn't buy it - I live in a six bedroom house with a garden that's more than twice this size - but if I wanted a 3 bed flat in central London I'd be absolutely delighted to live there. It's a striking and architecturally significant building, has incredible views and the flat is lovely inside. What's not to like?
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods how they prefer to access contraceptive services how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
I assume from this you are over 55...
Its not about people not counting. Its trying to apply a sensible cut-off point. Not everything is conspiracy, or cock-up.
Specifically "Menopause is when your periods stop due to lower hormone levels. It usually affects women between the ages of 45 and 55, but it can happen earlier."
So maybe turn your ire on the NHS...
There are women who have babies late. There are women who have the menopause late. If they want to know about women's reproductive health and the reality at all ages they should ask women not apply an arbitrary cut off age which will inevitably exclude information that they need to know.
And yes I will be writing to the department which has commissioned this survey.
Though with little expectation of any sense from them.
In other news North East London NHS Foundation Trust is being charged with corporate manslaughter and a ward manager with gross negligence manslaughter over the death of a woman in 2015.
I would imagine that women who fall outside of the main category (55 and under) will be unusual. So in some ways you don't want that data in the main data set. Perhaps a secondary survey is more appropriate.
Please write to them, but I expect the answer you receive will be similar to what I have suggested.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
The units are actually maisonettes so they lack the one redeeming feature of a flat - no more stairs to climb once you're home. And, of course, the interiors are snapped with a wide-angle lens that would make a phone box look like a circus tent. Trellick was conceived as a high-density roost for proles and so it remains.
I actually refer to those as Estate Agents Lenses. Everyone in photography, that I've met, agrees on that....
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods how they prefer to access contraceptive services how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
I assume from this you are over 55...
Its not about people not counting. Its trying to apply a sensible cut-off point. Not everything is conspiracy, or cock-up.
Specifically "Menopause is when your periods stop due to lower hormone levels. It usually affects women between the ages of 45 and 55, but it can happen earlier."
That's a bit woke, lefty, Remainer, liberal traitor isn't it?
It anyone starts posting as @EarthMother we will know who it is.
Sarcasm dripping from every pore? I think my response is perfectly valid and an attempt to explain something that isn't just a conspiracy against older women.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
I think you are not clear what you are criticising - what do you mean by brutalism? Without being clear, a broad-brush criticism is a succession of stereotypes.
The Barbican Estate / Golden Lane Estate and the British Library are both 'brutalist', and are fantastic buildings. Ditto the Lawn Road ("Isokon") flats in Hampstead - inspired by continental modernism, or the Highpoint 1 and 2 flats development in Highgate by Lubetkin. Or Enro Goldfinger's own house in Willow Road, Hampstead.
On the Council side, Camden did a number of excellent council flats developments (eg Fleet Road, Gospel Oak) that really exploited the plastic material qualities of concrete.
And the 1950s Alton Estate East and West at Roehampton is 'brutalist' but seminal, partly inspired by 'sensitive modernism' out of Scandinavia. , More your way (assuming Wales) what about the Brynmawr Rubber Factory, which was allowed to be demolished?
Any style degenerates into a slum if not maintained by the owner, and valued by the people who live there.
It's not so long since London's speulative, poor build quality Georgian houses were slums, and in the last decades they have become fashionable, and have had money thrown at them.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
The units are actually maisonettes so they lack the one redeeming feature of a flat - no more stairs to climb once you're home. And, of course, the interiors are snapped with a wide-angle lens that would make a phone box look like a circus tent. Trellick was conceived as a high-density roost for proles and so it remains.
Have you ever seen an Estate Agent interior shot *not* snapped with a wide-angle lens? At 95m2 the flat is larger than the average UK home, and materially larger than the average new build. I wouldn't buy it - I live in a six bedroom house with a garden that's more than twice this size - but if I wanted a 3 bed flat in central London I'd be absolutely delighted to live there. It's a striking and architecturally significant building, has incredible views and the flat is lovely inside. What's not to like?
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
And the survey explicitly refers to women's experience of the menopause. But this does not end at age 55 and in some cases has not even started then.
Out of my field but surely if the menopause hasn’t yet started then a woman can theoretically conceive even at 55?
Presumably they have used statistic analysis to set the cut off point
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
Pigeons, and for all I know nowadays, parakeets like you get in London nowadays.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods how they prefer to access contraceptive services how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
I assume from this you are over 55...
Its not about people not counting. Its trying to apply a sensible cut-off point. Not everything is conspiracy, or cock-up.
Specifically "Menopause is when your periods stop due to lower hormone levels. It usually affects women between the ages of 45 and 55, but it can happen earlier."
So maybe turn your ire on the NHS...
There are women who have babies late. There are women who have the menopause late. If they want to know about women's reproductive health and the reality at all ages they should ask women not apply an arbitrary cut off age which will inevitably exclude information that they need to know.
And yes I will be writing to the department which has commissioned this survey.
Though with little expectation of any sense from them.
In other news North East London NHS Foundation Trust is being charged with corporate manslaughter and a ward manager with gross negligence manslaughter over the death of a woman in 2015.
I would imagine that women who fall outside of the main category (55 and under) will be unusual. So in some ways you don't want that data in the main data set. Perhaps a secondary survey is more appropriate.
Please write to them, but I expect the answer you receive will be similar to what I have suggested.
There won't be a second survey. Those women will be ignored. It would be perfectly possible to ask women for their ages and then analyse the data according to age periods and note responses from those older than 55 and what they say.
If you don't ask, you don't know. And if you don't know you can't deal with any issues.
In related "you can't make this up" news, it appears that the 4 senior managers who are alleged to have protected Lucy Letby and who took action against the doctors who raised concerns, including the Head of HR and the Head of Legal (both of whom should bloody well know that retaliation against whistleblowers is a no-no) were made the Trust's Freedom to Speak guardians - the people who are meant to support and strengthen hospitals' support for whistleblowers.
Well, that went well.
The NHS badly needs good advice on how to create a proper Speak Up culture, how to investigate properly and independently, how to treat staff who do so and how to remediate the issues those investigations find. It seems to be failing on all fronts atm.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
I think you are not clear what you are criticising - what do you mean by brutalism? Without being clear, a broad-brush criticism is a succession of stereotypes.
The Barbican Estate / Golden Lane Estate and the British Library are both 'brutalist', and are fantastic buildings. Ditto the Lawn Road ("Isokon") flats in Hampstead - inspired by continental modernism, or the Highpoint 1 and 2 flats development in Highgate by Lubetkin. Or Enro Goldfinger's own house in Willow Road, Hampstead.
On the Council side, Camden did a number of excellent council flats developments (eg Fleet Road, Gospel Oak) that really exploited the plastic material qualities of concrete.
And the 1950s Alton Estate East and West at Roehampton is 'brutalist' but seminal, partly inspired by 'sensitive modernism' out of Scandinavia. , More your way (assuming Wales) what about the Brynmawr Rubber Factory, which was allowed to be demolished?
Any style degenerates into a slum if not maintained by the owner, and valued by the people who live there.
It's not so long since London's speulative, poor build quality Georgian houses were slums, and in the last decades they have become fashionable, and have had money thrown at them.
Quite right re the last. My Camden friend lives in one of these terraces - he's inot local history and was explaining how they used to be Rachmanite slums, till they went up in the world in the last 2-3 decades or so. Now sleekly renovated inside and very nice indeed.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
The units are actually maisonettes so they lack the one redeeming feature of a flat - no more stairs to climb once you're home. And, of course, the interiors are snapped with a wide-angle lens that would make a phone box look like a circus tent. Trellick was conceived as a high-density roost for proles and so it remains.
Have you ever seen an Estate Agent interior shot *not* snapped with a wide-angle lens? At 95m2 the flat is larger than the average UK home, and materially larger than the average new build. I wouldn't buy it - I live in a six bedroom house with a garden that's more than twice this size - but if I wanted a 3 bed flat in central London I'd be absolutely delighted to live there. It's a striking and architecturally significant building, has incredible views and the flat is lovely inside. What's not to like?
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
The units are actually maisonettes so they lack the one redeeming feature of a flat - no more stairs to climb once you're home. And, of course, the interiors are snapped with a wide-angle lens that would make a phone box look like a circus tent. Trellick was conceived as a high-density roost for proles and so it remains.
Have you ever seen an Estate Agent interior shot *not* snapped with a wide-angle lens? At 95m2 the flat is larger than the average UK home, and materially larger than the average new build. I wouldn't buy it - I live in a six bedroom house with a garden that's more than twice this size - but if I wanted a 3 bed flat in central London I'd be absolutely delighted to live there. It's a striking and architecturally significant building, has incredible views and the flat is lovely inside. What's not to like?
This discussion stems from an example of Trellick Tower, an iconic building in west London which surely attracts a premium over other high-rise developments.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods how they prefer to access contraceptive services how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
I assume from this you are over 55...
Its not about people not counting. Its trying to apply a sensible cut-off point. Not everything is conspiracy, or cock-up.
Specifically "Menopause is when your periods stop due to lower hormone levels. It usually affects women between the ages of 45 and 55, but it can happen earlier."
That's a bit woke, lefty, Remainer, liberal traitor isn't it?
It anyone starts posting as @EarthMother we will know who it is.
Sarcasm dripping from every pore? I think my response is perfectly valid and an attempt to explain something that isn't just a conspiracy against older women.
I deleted the post having thought better of it but Vanilla keep saving it. Please feel free to flag.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods how they prefer to access contraceptive services how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
I assume from this you are over 55...
Its not about people not counting. Its trying to apply a sensible cut-off point. Not everything is conspiracy, or cock-up.
Specifically "Menopause is when your periods stop due to lower hormone levels. It usually affects women between the ages of 45 and 55, but it can happen earlier."
That's a bit woke, lefty, Remainer, liberal traitor isn't it?
It anyone starts posting as @EarthMother we will know who it is.
Sarcasm dripping from every pore? I think my response is perfectly valid and an attempt to explain something that isn't just a conspiracy against older women.
I deleted the post having thought better of it but Vanilla keep saving it. Please feel free to flag.
Apologies.
I am not saying it's a conspiracy. But it is a mistake. It is a mistake which ought to be remedied. It can be easily without compromising the value of the information the survey seeks.
I will spare you a photo of my Hungarian lunch and offer you one of the parliament building, which as you can see from the scaling dog is smaller than often imagined.
The dog is up to sixteen countries now, and we soon will have both done eleven non-UK ones this year, which I think is a personal record for us both.
The government is carrying out what it calls a landmark survey on women's reproductive health and is asking women to respond. But only women up to the age of 55.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
With the greatest of respect, I don't see the issue here. Its not a survey of women's health, its specifically about reproductive health. Yes the impact of being a woman, the menopause etc are all important, but not for this question.
Why does it go up to 55 then? Women aged 50 or 55 don't have babies.
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
In June data published by the Office for National Statistics showed the number of births to 50-plus women has quadrupled over the last two decades, up from 55 in 2001 to 238 in 2016. During that period there were 1,859 births in the UK to women over 50, and 153 to women over 55.
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods how they prefer to access contraceptive services how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
I assume from this you are over 55...
Its not about people not counting. Its trying to apply a sensible cut-off point. Not everything is conspiracy, or cock-up.
Specifically "Menopause is when your periods stop due to lower hormone levels. It usually affects women between the ages of 45 and 55, but it can happen earlier."
That's a bit woke, lefty, Remainer, liberal traitor isn't it?
It anyone starts posting as @EarthMother we will know who it is.
Sarcasm dripping from every pore? I think my response is perfectly valid and an attempt to explain something that isn't just a conspiracy against older women.
I deleted the post having thought better of it but Vanilla keep saving it. Please feel free to flag.
Apologies.
I am not saying it's a conspiracy. But it is a mistake. It is a mistake which ought to be remedied. It can be easily without compromising the value of the information the survey seeks.
I am sorry @Cyclefree. I was just being a smart arse in responding with a smarmy reply to Tubbs. I had no business doing so, thus I deleted. Vanilla had other ideas and re-saved it anyway therefore causing offence to Tubbs. For that I apologise.
On your wider point, what a ludicrous survey, presumably written by both a youngster and an idiot.
The question has to be asked -is ULEZ damaging Khan and frankly I am amazed the conservative is within 1% in this poll
Right now, undoubtedly.
The questions to be asked are: 1 Will it still be damaging him this much next spring? That seems less likely, to be honest.
2 Will the LibDems really get sixteen percent in a real Mayoral election? That's well above what they got under the old system, when squeeze messages weren't really needed.
Anyway, if Khan has had the nerve to do something repulsive but right, good on him. The country is going to need a lot more of that to get out of the hole it's in.
The question has to be asked -is ULEZ damaging Khan and frankly I am amazed the conservative is within 1% in this poll
Corbyn wins easily if he stands imo
It seems like a job for people who need a bit of breathing space from the party whip, a taste for symbolic gestures and promotion. Khan's a bit of an outlier compared to the other holders. Probably a better fit for Corbyn than parliament to be honest.
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
Pigeons, and for all I know nowadays, parakeets like you get in London nowadays.
Round the corner from where we used to live, in a small square of greenery, the trees were an especial roost for a flock of parakeets.
Meanwhile, in Blighty, Sunak's government has wrecked one of the biggest success stories of this period of Tory rule, with the abject failure of the offshore win auction.
It's hard to see Sunak as the safe pair of hands to steward the country that he presented himself as when taking over following the Truss Calamity. Could be more than another year of this? I'd almost rather have Fine Gael...
Don't they just reopen the auction, LP?
Surely this is not a lot different to bids not reaching the reserve price - disappointing, but not a catastrophe.
o
The reserve price is the point at which not selling is better than selling. The alternative in this case is buying gas at currently twice the reserve price and is also subject to market risks. The government has wildly mispriced the reserve price in this instance. They will run another auction next year but it is a lost opportunity.
Why did the government get it wrong?
Overtaken by events (presumably higher interest rates make the capital investment more expensive) or stubborn wishful thinking (we don't WANT to pay more than X, so neerh)?
Will Dunn in the morning's Staggers email:
'Is it fair to blame the PM? Rishi Sunak appointed Grant Shapps to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, a post in which Shapps lasted less than a year before failing up into Defence. More significantly, in today’s news we see the results of what Sunak calls a “proportionate and pragmatic” (translation: cheap) approach to the grand problems of energy security and climate change: at least a year’s delay to big projects that could have delivered cheap renewable energy, produced at home.
Perhaps Boris “Saudi Arabia of wind” Johnson could intervene, but he’s a bit busy: this week, as the UK bakes in unseasonal heat, Johnson has been appearing at a fossil fuel conference sponsored by Exxon and Shell. It’ll be up to Jeremy Hunt to try to fix this in November.'
Not that interesting, sadly. More rant than analysis.
It seems more a rant against the social aspect of architecture in the post-war years that has been uneasily wrapped up around the RAAC debacle.
A shame, as there's an excellent case to be made against brutalism:
1)It looks shit;
2) The quality is shit;
3) The life expectancy is shit;
4) The environmental impact is large and negative;
5) And it's not even cheap because you have to do so much maintenance.
Like any type of architecture, there is brutalism done well and brutalism done badly. Survivorship bias tends to mean that earlier building styles look better than newer ones.
There's also torture done well and torture done badly. But the world would be a better place without any torture.
Brutalism, whatever the origin of the word, is torture on the eyes. The world would be a more beautiful place if Le Corbusier and others had not lived.
Yes it does, but they've floored it with old-fashioned parquet, whitewashed the inside of the balcony, clad the inner wall of the balcony with wood - it's hardly the brutalist ideal is it?
And the outside looks crap.
Scrolling down, they've also added an Oxford sink (!), and photographed the exterior of the building in the far distance with some nicer Victorian buildings in the foreground to reassure prospective buyers that it's not a whole suburb of grim brutalist structures.
I like the netting over the balcony. Trying to reduce the suicide rate? Or is there a problem with migrating swallows, at altitude?
The units are actually maisonettes so they lack the one redeeming feature of a flat - no more stairs to climb once you're home. And, of course, the interiors are snapped with a wide-angle lens that would make a phone box look like a circus tent. Trellick was conceived as a high-density roost for proles and so it remains.
Have you ever seen an Estate Agent interior shot *not* snapped with a wide-angle lens? At 95m2 the flat is larger than the average UK home, and materially larger than the average new build. I wouldn't buy it - I live in a six bedroom house with a garden that's more than twice this size - but if I wanted a 3 bed flat in central London I'd be absolutely delighted to live there. It's a striking and architecturally significant building, has incredible views and the flat is lovely inside. What's not to like?
This discussion stems from an example of Trellick Tower, an iconic building in west London which surely attracts a premium over other high-rise developments.
It is an example of a building that I want to destroy.
The alternatives are in a nice area, where you can live entirely without a car, due to local shops and amenities, incidentally.
Odd to see the left of Labour who proclaim is it the centrists and Blairites that deliver Tory Governments, literally advocating for Corbyn to stand so Hall can win.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
Elon Musk ordered Starlink to be turned off during Ukraine offensive, book says
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk-ordered-starlink-turned-off-ukraine-offensive-biography ...The biography, due out on Tuesday, alleges Musk ordered Starlink engineers to turn off service in the area of the attack because of his concern that Vladimir Putin would respond with nuclear weapons to a Ukrainian attack on Russian-occupied Crimea. He is reported to have said that Ukraine was “going too far” in threatening to inflict a “strategic defeat” on the Kremlin.
Musk’s threats to withdraw Starlink communications at various stages of the conflict have been previously reported, but this is the first time it has been alleged he cut off Ukrainian forces in the middle of a specific operation.
The date of the would-be attack was not specified. Musk reportedly referred to it as a “mini Pearl Harbor”, although Ukrainian forces were operating within their internationally recognised territorial waters...
There is a whiff of rancid Chornoye More caviar about this story. Why would an "armed submarine drone" need Starlink? It uses Ku band which obviously doesn't work underwater. You can't use it for positioning with any reliability or accuracy on a moving vehicle. An autonomous vehicle, as the story states, would use some commercial IMU/INS or maybe even ArduPilot in times of true desperation not a continuous Internet link.
There's also the possibility that Musk got his instructions from elsewhere. The US does like to fiddle with the controls when fine tuning the Ukrainian offensive capability.
I think the story is less cheesy than you think. The drones the Ukranians currently operate are not true submarines - they don't dive and surface, they just have a very shallow superstructure that allows waves to travel over them. They have developed prototype submarine drones but even they have communication masts. The larger, self-operating ones (with no masts) are not yet deployed
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Just looked at where Hereford is on the map. It's really the arse end of nowhere, isn't it. How is it not in Wales?
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
You need to get a grip - travel writing should alternate between "I visited a blasted Hellscape" and "The gin and tonics here are awesome". Or so I'm told.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Just looked at where Hereford is on the map. It's really the arse end of nowhere, isn't it. How is it not in Wales?
I stayed in Hereford once, on a Friday night. I have been to better places.
Aosta, however, has a very nice market, if it's on today?
Quite. There are certain things that humans find beautiful in buildings, relating to inherited ideals of safety, plenty, security. Ornament, symmetry, natural materials like wood and stone, deep set windows, lush vegetation etc. Brutalist architecture is demonstrably fuck ugly, that's why brutalist architects famously choose to live in Tudor mansions.
I don't think you can safely generalise about all humans. The place I must enjoyed living in was on the top floor of this:
- which I suppose you'd see as rather brutalist? Airy flat with two balconies, clean lines devoid of fiddly ornaments, no plants but spacious, and still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable.
In view of the flurry of activity and the number of Lib Dem and to a lesser extent Labour poster boards going up will the Independent run when it comes to the moment of nomination - could be in danger of losing his deposit? If he does not then suspect his remaining vote will go primarily to the Lib Dems. Good win for the Lib Dems on the rural Staffordshire/Shropshire border yesterday, big swing!
Quite. There are certain things that humans find beautiful in buildings, relating to inherited ideals of safety, plenty, security. Ornament, symmetry, natural materials like wood and stone, deep set windows, lush vegetation etc. Brutalist architecture is demonstrably fuck ugly, that's why brutalist architects famously choose to live in Tudor mansions.
I don't think you can safely generalise about all humans. The place I must enjoyed living in was on the top floor of this:
- which I suppose you'd see as rather brutalist? Airy flat with two balconies, clean lines devoid of fiddly ornaments, no plants but spacious, and still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable.
Affordable for you. Most people earning a mere 50k would find that swallows up a huge chunk of their pay
Comments
One think some other countries do (in my experience Denmark, particularly) is not-super-high-rise blocks of flats that are functional but pleasant, surrounded by lots of green space with parks just round the corner. Had some friends living in a similar looking block in Copenhagen and it was lovely.
Here, we tend to think blocks of flats and think super high density, cramming them in close together with nothing but depressing concrete walkways in between.
Having little knowledge in this area - do any of you guys have any comments? @MattW perhaps.
“Landlords are selling up like never before due to the increase in mortgage rates, and the new EPC rules that are due to come into force – meaning that you will not be able to let a property unless the EPC rating is minimum “C” – it is “E” at the moment.
Most of the old terrace houses struggle to meet “E” – God knows how much it will cost to reach “C” – there are no cavity walls to pump foam insulation into – so all the walls would have to be lined inside with solid insulation panels. Can you imagine the cost of just that one work item – and of course – there will have to be insulation laid under the floors etc etc to reach “C”.
The property will be uninhabitable during the work – if you can find someone to do it - so no rental income either.
Then there is the outlawing of gas boilers – this bill has just passed through the commons with only 61 votes against, so will become law.
If you are forced to go down the route of an air heat pump, you will have a big noisy heat exchanger on your house wall and will have to increase the size of your radiators by at least 50% to reach the same temperature that you enjoy now – and may well have to heat your water using electricity.
The only future hope is the development of hydrogen boilers that will fit in place of the existing gas boiler, but the whole delivery system through the mains gas supply pipes will have to be adapted.”
And the outside looks crap.
I'm becoming a landlord from Sunday (forgive me - I'm going on a career break and letting it out to a friend) and I hadn't realised that the bank dictates the the rent. Mine is an additional 1% on my rate and 125% of the mortgage payment. So the cost does not fall on landlords at all, and in Edinburgh the demand is huge so you will easily find a tenant.
I am tempted by LD price now its drifted to a more realistic odds against compared to the opening odds on.
Just winder who the Indy will likely takr votes from most feels like Cons to me but if its LDs Lab in with a real shout
This is a consent to let, not sure if it is any different for a buy to let.
This doesn’t deal with the effect that the hideous building has on the surrounding area.
Building high density housing that is nice on the inside and nice on the outside is perfectly possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann's_renovation_of_Paris
Belief in Scottish independence could be classified as an extremist view. In fact anything can be put in the extremist box if it upsets the powerful and influential. The term has a chilling effect on political debate which is quite deliberate, and I'd expect anyone who is political and has some nous to avoid using it with relish, if not condemn it. But hey, you do you.
Never fear, there's not the slightest chance of anyone but me doing me.
I'm just saying the information presented in the story doesn't make a lot of sense.
Because of course women over that age don't have health issues related to the menopause, hysterectomies, cervical smears, breast cancer and, yes, sex.
I suppose it's too much to expect Badenoch, Minister for Women, to take her fingers out of her arse and tell Barclay to stop being an idiot. Still, a message to that effect from me is on its way ......
*see also: Home Sec.
I think Mr Palmer is putting his faith on the result of the 2019 election, when the polarisation of the vote on the question of undoing Brexit led a lot of people into voting Labour. Not going to happen again....
I’ve just been for an 11K run and could already feel it heating up towards the end
The issue with Starlink is actually quite complex - in one legal view, allowing Starlink to be used as an integral part of a weapon system, could mean that Starlink becomes a controlled export item. As in a Starlink terminal becomes classified as a munition.
One way round this is the separation of military use to a specific and separate contract type.
And lo and behold - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/05/spacex-unveils-starshield-a-military-variation-of-starlink-satellites.html
EDIT - a submersible drone that comes to the surface for updates is a plausible idea. I've wondered whether the next stage in the evolution of the speedboat drones is one where they ballast themselves down to run awash or below the surface. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_David
If it's about fertility and reproduction then the age limit does not make sense. Reproductive health is not limited to fertility but to health issues arising from womens' reproductive system and these continue after women can no longer conceive.
And the survey explicitly refers to women's experience of the menopause. But this does not end at age 55 and in some cases has not even started then.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/aug/21/becoming-mother-in-50s-number-births-soaring
"Questions women are being asked to answer include:
how much pain they experience during their periods
how they prefer to access contraceptive services
how satisfied they were with any support they received for menopausal symptoms"
But hey, let's exclude women who are old enough to experience menopausal symptoms and their after effects.
The government has got this wrong. Ask all women. Ask for ages and then actually learn from women what they endure rather than assume that women over 55 don't count.
Listening to women. That's a novel idea. We should try it.
Its not about people not counting. Its trying to apply a sensible cut-off point. Not everything is conspiracy, or cock-up.
Edit - From the NHS...
https://nhs.uk/conditions/menopause/
Specifically "Menopause is when your periods stop due to lower hormone levels. It usually affects women between the ages of 45 and 55, but it can happen earlier."
So maybe turn your ire on the NHS...
Further to our recent convo about covid, my older daughter has just gone down with it. Likewise all her friends at Sixth Form
This is another wave
Plus new autumn boosters are on the way (I was pinged by my GP surgery yesterday).
The flat in question had a double height living room. The bedrooms/bathroom were off a gallery upstairs - the gallery opened onto the living space. The kitchen area was directly below the gallery.
It certainly gave a sense of vast space. Though the owner said that changing light bulbs was an absolute pain. He was rather interested by my suggestion of lower able light fittings in the style of the old chandeliers that you could lower to light the candles.
I’d rather Corbyn won than him. Probably
And yes I will be writing to the department which has commissioned this survey.
Though with little expectation of any sense from them.
In other news North East London NHS Foundation Trust is being charged with corporate manslaughter and a ward manager with gross negligence manslaughter over the death of a woman in 2015.
At 95m2 the flat is larger than the average UK home, and materially larger than the average new build.
I wouldn't buy it - I live in a six bedroom house with a garden that's more than twice this size - but if I wanted a 3 bed flat in central London I'd be absolutely delighted to live there. It's a striking and architecturally significant building, has incredible views and the flat is lovely inside. What's not to like?
Please write to them, but I expect the answer you receive will be similar to what I have suggested.
It anyone starts posting as @EarthMother we will know who it is.
a broad-brush criticism is a succession of stereotypes.
The Barbican Estate / Golden Lane Estate and the British Library are both 'brutalist', and are fantastic buildings. Ditto the Lawn Road ("Isokon") flats in Hampstead - inspired by continental modernism, or the Highpoint 1 and 2 flats development in Highgate by Lubetkin. Or Enro Goldfinger's own house in Willow Road, Hampstead.
On the Council side, Camden did a number of excellent council flats developments (eg Fleet Road, Gospel Oak) that really exploited the plastic material qualities of concrete.
And the 1950s Alton Estate East and West at Roehampton is 'brutalist' but seminal, partly inspired by 'sensitive modernism' out of Scandinavia.
,
More your way (assuming Wales) what about the Brynmawr Rubber Factory, which was allowed to be demolished?
Any style degenerates into a slum if not maintained by the owner, and valued by the people who live there.
It's not so long since London's speulative, poor build quality Georgian houses were slums, and in the last decades they have become fashionable, and have had money thrown at them.
London Mayoral Voting Intention:
Khan (LAB): 33% (-7)
Hall (CON): 32% (-3)
Blackie (LDM): 16% (+12)
Garbett (GRN): 9% (+1)
Cox (RFM): 4% (New)
Others: 6% (-6)
@RedfieldWilton 5-6 Sep.
Changes w/ 2021.
The question has to be asked -is ULEZ damaging Khan and frankly I am amazed the conservative is within 1% in this poll
As an alternative, for example
Or, if you want a flat
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/134235866#/?channel=RES_BUY
Presumably they have used statistic analysis to set the cut off point
The question nobody is addressing is where is all the money to come from ?
Scrapping the 11 billion cost of the triple lock would be a start but again nobody is suggesting it
If you don't ask, you don't know. And if you don't know you can't deal with any issues.
In related "you can't make this up" news, it appears that the 4 senior managers who are alleged to have protected Lucy Letby and who took action against the doctors who raised concerns, including the Head of HR and the Head of Legal (both of whom should bloody well know that retaliation against whistleblowers is a no-no) were made the Trust's Freedom to Speak guardians - the people who are meant to support and strengthen hospitals' support for whistleblowers.
Well, that went well.
The NHS badly needs good advice on how to create a proper Speak Up culture, how to investigate properly and independently, how to treat staff who do so and how to remediate the issues those investigations find. It seems to be failing on all fronts atm.
Apologies.
I don't buy that LD score.
The dog is up to sixteen countries now, and we soon will have both done eleven non-UK ones this year, which I think is a personal record for us both.
On your wider point, what a ludicrous survey, presumably written by both a youngster and an idiot.
The questions to be asked are:
1 Will it still be damaging him this much next spring? That seems less likely, to be honest.
2 Will the LibDems really get sixteen percent in a real Mayoral election? That's well above what they got under the old system, when squeeze messages weren't really needed.
Anyway, if Khan has had the nerve to do something repulsive but right, good on him. The country is going to need a lot more of that to get out of the hole it's in.
Yup sounds like Jezza, greatest Tory agent since Thatcher
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
'Is it fair to blame the PM? Rishi Sunak appointed Grant Shapps to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, a post in which Shapps lasted less than a year before failing up into Defence. More significantly, in today’s news we see the results of what Sunak calls a “proportionate and pragmatic” (translation: cheap) approach to the grand problems of energy security and climate change: at least a year’s delay to big projects that could have delivered cheap renewable energy, produced at home.
Perhaps Boris “Saudi Arabia of wind” Johnson could intervene, but he’s a bit busy: this week, as the UK bakes in unseasonal heat, Johnson has been appearing at a fossil fuel conference sponsored by Exxon and Shell. It’ll be up to Jeremy Hunt to try to fix this in November.'
The alternatives are in a nice area, where you can live entirely without a car, due to local shops and amenities, incidentally.
Kick them all out.
https://twitter.com/Thenorthernlad7/status/1699456507497136426
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
- Current drones: http://www.hisutton.com/Ukraine-Maritime-Drones.html
- Prototype 1 ‘Toloka’: http://www.hisutton.com/New-Ukraine-Underwater-Maritime-Drone.html
- Prototype 2: 'Marichka': http://www.hisutton.com/Ukraine-Marichka-AUV.html
They seem to be doing a speed run thru the evolution of cartel submarinesI am waiting at the railway station in Aosta. This building is cleaner than an NHS hospital.
Just an observation.
I don't like it, but it's understandable how it happens.
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
Aosta, however, has a very nice market, if it's on today?
If he does not then suspect his remaining vote will go primarily to the Lib Dems.
Good win for the Lib Dems on the rural Staffordshire/Shropshire border yesterday, big swing!