Dylan Difford @Dylan_Difford · 2h The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
Vote Tory and be 11/1 to die before you get another vote. Vote safe, pick another party.
David Teeger has been relieved of the South Africa Under-19 captaincy a week before the World Cup over concerns for his safety following his comments in support of Israeli soldiers in the ongoing conflict with Palestine.
Dylan Difford @Dylan_Difford · 2h The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
Vote Tory and be 11/1 to die before you get another vote. Vote safe, pick another party.
🌹Labour 42% (-) 🌳Conservatives 27% (-1) 🔶Liberal Democrats 10% (-1) 🟣Reform UK 9% (+1) 💚Greens 8% (+2) Labour lead of 15 Field work 9/1-11/1
Bad news for Davey, in this first poll with the PO Scandal leading the news.
"People think Ed Davey should resign 42%-19% - again it isn't unusual for people to say a politician (even fictional ones should resign). But more worryingly for the Lib Dem leader his own supporters are split 28%-33% on the question of if he should go."
One thing I like of this pollster is how they break down by generation, and also try to squeeze the initial "Don't Knows" into a choice.
Lab ahead with all age groups under 75, even boomers. If forced to choose then DKs break fairly evenly, but narrowly for Labour.
Strewth. If don't knows are breaking for Labour (even slightly) then that's devastating. If the crossover age is 75+ then...well.
Yeah, but, no. All the don’t knows breaking Tory might vote on the day, whilst all those favouring Labour stay at home, might not remotely be even split from each.
Something has happened reasonably recently for large number of voters to decide conclusively against Tories. I think it might have been Conference Season. I think Radical Rishi Unleashed & The Great HS2 Surrender has gone down badly with voters. Conservative drift downward seems to stem from that week?
The HS2 decision really fucked the infrastructure industry in this country and has caused chaos, quite aside from it being economically devastating.
I'm still furious about it. And the idea that Sunak thought this was evidence of him taking great decisions for the long-term that would appeal to voters.
I mean, WTF?
It's particularly disappointing when you consider how successful the Elizabeth Line has been. It's possible the enormous construction bill will be paid off within 20 years because passenger numbers are so high.
Yes but London is so much more important than Manc. Apparently.
The whole decision is pure idiocy. Especially as the line will get built eventually, just for even more money. The HS2 decision took me from thinking Sunak was just an annoying wee prick to actively loathing him.
And still no direct trains from anywhere north, west, south or east of London, a couple of stations on HS1 excepted, on which one can go to the rest of Europe without a greater or lesser trek on foot with luggage and offspring etc through a still seedy part of London.
A bodge perhaps, but surely they can find a line along which to bore an airport style transit, moving walkways etc. between Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross.
I know it's busy down there, but surely that's the minimum.
If Crossrail 2 ever gets built they'll be connected on that. Probably never will though, despite it being in London there's not enough money now.
The idea of a moving walkway would be to not go into the deep underground to catch a train, by the time you've walked down and up again, you could've got to/from Euston at street level. And certainly King's Cross - St. Pancras is "cross the road" and only a madman would go down and back up into the shared underground station or even into an underground walkway.
I still never quite got the 15 minute transfer from LNER to Javelin to work though, though generally I did have family in tow. But the main factor in that is platform to concourse within each station.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
Thanks, Malmesbury, for your point that you are not suggesting a conspiracy theory.
Two further difficulties. It's all a bit neat. Are you saying (as you have explicitly said) that the 10,000 'have no skill in their jobs'. Are there not big leaders of big organisations, public and private, who attract no attention because things work quietly and well?
Secondly, how many? You mention a director of a LA (Rotherham) children's services. Well, in terms of job status (head of a department of a local authority) that would have placed my late father, and a number of very ordinary people I knew and know in the '10,000'. He wasn't and they aren't. Ditto 'senior NHS managers'.
It seems to me you are taking a real and bad set of people and outcomes and universalising it.
I think rather that it's a provocative thought experiment which Malmesbury has overclaimed for. As another poster has pointed out, it would be a very interesting journalistic exercise to conduct a systemic analysis - but of whom ?
11 months to a probable Labour victory and PBers are already losing their minds over the threat of militant vegetarianism, 15-minute cities and, bizarrely, Ed Davey.
Election now, for all our sakes.
As far as I notice, you're the one who keeps bringing up the stupid idea of "15-minute cities", I don't see many others doing so.
15 minute cities, like vegetarianism, is fine if its voluntary and you don't force your views on others.
When you want to push your beliefs upon others, its discriminatory, wrong, and don't be surprised if you get a backlash.
No one has ever wanted to force “15 minute cities” on others. That’s pure conspiracy theory.
So nobody wants to make it a planning requirement? Nobody wants to stand in the way of construction if it's not met?
You may want to get your story straight by having a conversation with @El_Capitano because he gladly wants to stand in the way of "Barratt Homes or David Wilson Homes" getting some much-needed houses built.
Are the Tories really going to go into the next election campaigning for public services to be further away?
I'm not a Tory so can't answer that.
But get your story straight.
Is nobody trying to force 15 minute cities on others?
Or is it a good thing that they are?
You keep flirting between both with no shame whatsoever.
No one is stopping you from driving 30 minutes to see a GP in a neighbouring town. You do you.
That's not the question.
Are you supporting planning restrictions that prevent people building homes during the middle of a housing crisis?
I made a silly comment about some PBers losing their minds about 15 minute cities and vegetarians and...
Take a step away from Facebook for a few weeks. Will do you some good.
Still avoiding the question.
Are you in favour of planning restrictions that can be abused by NIMBYs during a housing shortage? Yes or no?
If no, we're on the same page. If yes, you're in the wrong and you know it so are embarrassed to admit it.
I am in favour of no new housing without basic sanitation, so yes, I suppose I am.
But consider where I used to live. The sanitation was full up capacity wise - the council blocked future housing developments till it was sorted. What else could they do?
BR thinks houses should still be allowed. Are we to have a new plant built for one house, two ... 200, or a full load for the plant? And where is the money coming from? Severn Trent's profits (for instance)? It has to come from the developer - they are the ones wanting planning permission big enough to justifyt a new plant and they are the only ones with money.
How this squares with BR's demands fior piecemeal individual development like a 1920s bungaloid cancer, and trhe current government demand for 101% efficiency in every public service, I have absolutely no idea and leave the two of you to make sense of it all.
It absolutely should not come from the developer, the developer is not responsible for the water firm, the water firm is.
Houses aren't full of shit anyway, people are, especially you it seems still regurgitating this shit despite having been called on it repeatedly. Our population has grown by nearly 10 million people in a generation, yes that means more housing and more treatment plants and whatever else is needed.
You make it efficient by everyone taking responsibility for their own responsibilities. Housing developers should be responsible for building housing and absolutely nothing else. Sewage companies should be responsible for treating sewage - and in your case its nationalised anyway, so it is your government's fault at Holyrood more than housing developers if there's still not enough waste treatment as that's their wholly-owned responsibility.
Developers are the reason the demand for sewerage moves around from place to place and new plants need to be built. Simple as that.
You may think you live in a wall to wall 1950s shite version of LA, but I live in an area where there is plenty of open space with rather little sewerage treatment in between. It's called 'countryside with towns here and there'. You can't connect every fucking field between Edinburgh and Carlisle to sewage plants just because some developer might want to build Barratt'type houses in the middle of nowhere with parking for 3 cars perh house and no facilities closer than Riccarton Junction.
No, population growth, people growing up and migration is the reason people move from place to place.
Our population has grown by ten million due to immigration and the old not dying and people having kids. Not because of construction firms.
If you want to reverse that rather than permit construction then you either need a combination of sterilisation of people so they can't have kids and/or forced abortions against their will, forced emigration of people who live in this country, or murdering/euthanising people.
Or we could, you know, actually build some homes for the people who live here, reverse our ten million home shortage to end the housing crisis and invest in whatever facilities are actually necessary.
🌹Labour 42% (-) 🌳Conservatives 27% (-1) 🔶Liberal Democrats 10% (-1) 🟣Reform UK 9% (+1) 💚Greens 8% (+2) Labour lead of 15 Field work 9/1-11/1
Bad news for Davey, in this first poll with the PO Scandal leading the news.
"People think Ed Davey should resign 42%-19% - again it isn't unusual for people to say a politician (even fictional ones should resign). But more worryingly for the Lib Dem leader his own supporters are split 28%-33% on the question of if he should go."
One thing I like of this pollster is how they break down by generation, and also try to squeeze the initial "Don't Knows" into a choice.
Lab ahead with all age groups under 75, even boomers. If forced to choose then DKs break fairly evenly, but narrowly for Labour.
Strewth. If don't knows are breaking for Labour (even slightly) then that's devastating. If the crossover age is 75+ then...well.
Yeah, but, no. All the don’t knows breaking Tory might vote on the day, whilst all those favouring Labour stay at home, might not remotely be even split from each.
Something has happened reasonably recently for large number of voters to decide conclusively against Tories. I think it might have been Conference Season. I think Radical Rishi Unleashed & The Great HS2 Surrender has gone down badly with voters. Conservative drift downward seems to stem from that week?
The HS2 decision really fucked the infrastructure industry in this country and has caused chaos, quite aside from it being economically devastating.
I'm still furious about it. And the idea that Sunak thought this was evidence of him taking great decisions for the long-term that would appeal to voters.
I mean, WTF?
It's particularly disappointing when you consider how successful the Elizabeth Line has been. It's possible the enormous construction bill will be paid off within 20 years because passenger numbers are so high.
Yes but London is so much more important than Manc. Apparently.
The whole decision is pure idiocy. Especially as the line will get built eventually, just for even more money. The HS2 decision took me from thinking Sunak was just an annoying wee prick to actively loathing him.
And still no direct trains from anywhere north, west, south or east of London, a couple of stations on HS1 excepted, on which one can go to the rest of Europe without a greater or lesser trek on foot with luggage and offspring etc through a still seedy part of London.
A bodge perhaps, but surely they can find a line along which to bore an airport style transit, moving walkways etc. between Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross.
I know it's busy down there, but surely that's the minimum.
If Crossrail 2 ever gets built they'll be connected on that. Probably never will though, despite it being in London there's not enough money now.
The idea of a moving walkway would be to not go into the deep underground to catch a train, by the time you've walked down and up again, you could've got to/from Euston at street level. And certainly King's Cross - St. Pancras is "cross the road" and only a madman would go down and back up into the shared underground station or even into an underground walkway.
I still never quite got the 15 minute transfer from LNER to Javelin to work though, though generally I did have family in tow. But the main factor in that is platform to concourse within each station.
It’s about an 8 minute walk if that. We’ve all done more than that in airports
All they need to do is make it obvious and dedicated and shelter it from weather. Tunnels not required
Dylan Difford @Dylan_Difford · 2h The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
Vote Tory and be 11/1 to die before you get another vote. Vote safe, pick another party.
Can we put those deceased ones down as a maybe?
I don't think we're putting them down... I hope it's mainly natural causes.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Dylan Difford @Dylan_Difford · 2h The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
Vote Tory and be 11/1 to die before you get another vote. Vote safe, pick another party.
Can we put those deceased ones down as a maybe?
You could give 'em post dated postal votes for the next few elections.
🌹Labour 42% (-) 🌳Conservatives 27% (-1) 🔶Liberal Democrats 10% (-1) 🟣Reform UK 9% (+1) 💚Greens 8% (+2) Labour lead of 15 Field work 9/1-11/1
Bad news for Davey, in this first poll with the PO Scandal leading the news.
"People think Ed Davey should resign 42%-19% - again it isn't unusual for people to say a politician (even fictional ones should resign). But more worryingly for the Lib Dem leader his own supporters are split 28%-33% on the question of if he should go."
One thing I like of this pollster is how they break down by generation, and also try to squeeze the initial "Don't Knows" into a choice.
Lab ahead with all age groups under 75, even boomers. If forced to choose then DKs break fairly evenly, but narrowly for Labour.
Strewth. If don't knows are breaking for Labour (even slightly) then that's devastating. If the crossover age is 75+ then...well.
Yeah, but, no. All the don’t knows breaking Tory might vote on the day, whilst all those favouring Labour stay at home, might not remotely be even split from each.
Something has happened reasonably recently for large number of voters to decide conclusively against Tories. I think it might have been Conference Season. I think Radical Rishi Unleashed & The Great HS2 Surrender has gone down badly with voters. Conservative drift downward seems to stem from that week?
The HS2 decision really fucked the infrastructure industry in this country and has caused chaos, quite aside from it being economically devastating.
I'm still furious about it. And the idea that Sunak thought this was evidence of him taking great decisions for the long-term that would appeal to voters.
I mean, WTF?
It's particularly disappointing when you consider how successful the Elizabeth Line has been. It's possible the enormous construction bill will be paid off within 20 years because passenger numbers are so high.
Yes but London is so much more important than Manc. Apparently.
The whole decision is pure idiocy. Especially as the line will get built eventually, just for even more money. The HS2 decision took me from thinking Sunak was just an annoying wee prick to actively loathing him.
And still no direct trains from anywhere north, west, south or east of London, a couple of stations on HS1 excepted, on which one can go to the rest of Europe without a greater or lesser trek on foot with luggage and offspring etc through a still seedy part of London.
A bodge perhaps, but surely they can find a line along which to bore an airport style transit, moving walkways etc. between Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross.
I know it's busy down there, but surely that's the minimum.
If Crossrail 2 ever gets built they'll be connected on that. Probably never will though, despite it being in London there's not enough money now.
The idea of a moving walkway would be to not go into the deep underground to catch a train, by the time you've walked down and up again, you could've got to/from Euston at street level. And certainly King's Cross - St. Pancras is "cross the road" and only a madman would go down and back up into the shared underground station or even into an underground walkway.
I still never quite got the 15 minute transfer from LNER to Javelin to work though, though generally I did have family in tow. But the main factor in that is platform to concourse within each station.
It’s about an 8 minute walk if that. We’ve all done more than that in airports
All they need to do is make it obvious and dedicated and shelter it from weather. Tunnels not required
It needs to feel segregated and part of a natural transit from A to B, as close an experience to walking gate to gate in, for example, Schiphol as possible. No crossing roads, ideally. Overground is fine, just do what works.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
Dylan Difford @Dylan_Difford · 2h The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
If this holds, it leads to the lowest number of Conservative votes in over 100 years and the lowest since universal suffrage.
It doesn't seem that long ago we were debating whether Labour would be able to form a minority government even if the Tories were the largest party.
On topic (in my opinion): As an outsider, I find these discussions of "woke" in the UK vague. Itis hard to know what policies most of you are praising or attacking.
And so I have come up with an example that I think might clarify your discussions. In 1998, Washington state voters passed Iniitative Initiative 200: "Initiative 200 was a Washington state initiative to the Legislature promoted by California affirmative-action opponent Ward Connerly, and filed by Scott Smith and Tim Eyman.[1] It sought to prohibit racial and gender preferences by state and local government. It was on the Washington ballot in November 1998 and passed with 58.22% of the vote. It added to Washington's law (but not its constitution) the following language:
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.[2]
Initiative 200 effectively curtailed any form of affirmative action in the state.[3] In April 2019, the Washington Legislature passed Initiative 1000, ending the ban on affirmative action.[4] However, in November 2019, Referendum 88 blocked Initiative 1000 from going into effect." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_200
Correction: The initiative did not end "affirmative action"; it simply meant those who favored it had to be less open about practicing it, less open about giving contracts to their chums, or admissions to the children of their chums.
(There were similar initiatives passed in other places, notably Calfornia, earlier and later. In general, they mirrored state and federal ciivl rights laws, often adopting language from those laws.)
Were you a Washington state voter, would you have voted for, or against, this initiative?
🌹Labour 42% (-) 🌳Conservatives 27% (-1) 🔶Liberal Democrats 10% (-1) 🟣Reform UK 9% (+1) 💚Greens 8% (+2) Labour lead of 15 Field work 9/1-11/1
Bad news for Davey, in this first poll with the PO Scandal leading the news.
"People think Ed Davey should resign 42%-19% - again it isn't unusual for people to say a politician (even fictional ones should resign). But more worryingly for the Lib Dem leader his own supporters are split 28%-33% on the question of if he should go."
One thing I like of this pollster is how they break down by generation, and also try to squeeze the initial "Don't Knows" into a choice.
Lab ahead with all age groups under 75, even boomers. If forced to choose then DKs break fairly evenly, but narrowly for Labour.
Strewth. If don't knows are breaking for Labour (even slightly) then that's devastating. If the crossover age is 75+ then...well.
Yeah, but, no. All the don’t knows breaking Tory might vote on the day, whilst all those favouring Labour stay at home, might not remotely be even split from each.
Something has happened reasonably recently for large number of voters to decide conclusively against Tories. I think it might have been Conference Season. I think Radical Rishi Unleashed & The Great HS2 Surrender has gone down badly with voters. Conservative drift downward seems to stem from that week?
The HS2 decision really fucked the infrastructure industry in this country and has caused chaos, quite aside from it being economically devastating.
I'm still furious about it. And the idea that Sunak thought this was evidence of him taking great decisions for the long-term that would appeal to voters.
I mean, WTF?
It's particularly disappointing when you consider how successful the Elizabeth Line has been. It's possible the enormous construction bill will be paid off within 20 years because passenger numbers are so high.
Yes but London is so much more important than Manc. Apparently.
The whole decision is pure idiocy. Especially as the line will get built eventually, just for even more money. The HS2 decision took me from thinking Sunak was just an annoying wee prick to actively loathing him.
And still no direct trains from anywhere north, west, south or east of London, a couple of stations on HS1 excepted, on which one can go to the rest of Europe without a greater or lesser trek on foot with luggage and offspring etc through a still seedy part of London.
A bodge perhaps, but surely they can find a line along which to bore an airport style transit, moving walkways etc. between Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross.
I know it's busy down there, but surely that's the minimum.
If Crossrail 2 ever gets built they'll be connected on that. Probably never will though, despite it being in London there's not enough money now.
The idea of a moving walkway would be to not go into the deep underground to catch a train, by the time you've walked down and up again, you could've got to/from Euston at street level. And certainly King's Cross - St. Pancras is "cross the road" and only a madman would go down and back up into the shared underground station or even into an underground walkway.
I still never quite got the 15 minute transfer from LNER to Javelin to work though, though generally I did have family in tow. But the main factor in that is platform to concourse within each station.
It’s about an 8 minute walk if that. We’ve all done more than that in airports
All they need to do is make it obvious and dedicated and shelter it from weather. Tunnels not required
It needs to feel segregated and part of a natural transit from A to B, as close an experience to walking gate to gate in, for example, Schiphol as possible. No crossing roads, ideally. Overground is fine, just do what works.
Make a positive of virtue. Make it a glazed arcade with shops. Victorian and beautiful
It’s not the loveliest boulevard in london. We wouldn’t be ruining the Mall
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
That is stunningly bad. Published between 2008 and 2011, the PO calls it a 'historical document'.
I would have thought that reference to 'negroid types' was beyond the pale in the 1970s, let alone in this century.
Well their legal arrangements are also rooted in the pre-20thC past, so it's not entirely a surprise.
In his book, Nick Wallis touches on the subject and although he couldn't substantiate the suspicion with figures, he was pretty sure there was a racist angle to the Scandal.
Thanks, Malmesbury, for your point that you are not suggesting a conspiracy theory.
Two further difficulties. It's all a bit neat. Are you saying (as you have explicitly said) that the 10,000 'have no skill in their jobs'. Are there not big leaders of big organisations, public and private, who attract no attention because things work quietly and well?
Secondly, how many? You mention a director of a LA (Rotherham) children's services. Well, in terms of job status (head of a department of a local authority) that would have placed my late father, and a number of very ordinary people I knew and know in the '10,000'. He wasn't and they aren't. Ditto 'senior NHS managers'.
It seems to me you are taking a real and bad set of people and outcomes and universalising it.
I think rather that it's a provocative thought experiment which Malmesbury has overclaimed for. As another poster has pointed out, it would be a very interesting journalistic exercise to conduct a systemic analysis - but of whom ?
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
Leon finally takes an interest in the real Post Office scandal
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
Only in the last few years have I ever encountered this confusion. The 1800s was 1800-1809. No question. The overall century was the 19th century
Its modern young people getting confused as they try and buy settees in Aldi. Twats
Dylan Difford @Dylan_Difford · 2h The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
Vote Tory and be 11/1 to die before you get another vote. Vote safe, pick another party.
Can we put those deceased ones down as a maybe?
You could give 'em post dated postal votes for the next few elections.
And the proposed new Type 83s (which basically are proposed cruisers) look great on paper but I'll be surprised if they ever see the light of day as specced.
And if we do we'll probably just get 2 or 3 sub-par ones.
I predict they'll split it like T26/T31 and do 2+2 or 2+3 T83 and a hypothetical T9x which will be a much cheaper vessel. Maybe T83 will be the cruiser concept and T9x the lightly crewed arsenal concept.
Bear in mind that the government now has two surface combatant yards it has to keep on life support no matter what: Govan and Rosyth. Rosyth is going to have to be given something to do after T31 and a split T83/T9x program would solve that, save money and mean less crew will be needed.
It's also notable that zero planning has commenced on any QE replacement. That program took 26 years from initiation to first (sort of) operational deployment. If the RN intends to replace them then they should have already started but the silence is deafening.
🌹Labour 42% (-) 🌳Conservatives 27% (-1) 🔶Liberal Democrats 10% (-1) 🟣Reform UK 9% (+1) 💚Greens 8% (+2) Labour lead of 15 Field work 9/1-11/1
Bad news for Davey, in this first poll with the PO Scandal leading the news.
"People think Ed Davey should resign 42%-19% - again it isn't unusual for people to say a politician (even fictional ones should resign). But more worryingly for the Lib Dem leader his own supporters are split 28%-33% on the question of if he should go."
One thing I like of this pollster is how they break down by generation, and also try to squeeze the initial "Don't Knows" into a choice.
Lab ahead with all age groups under 75, even boomers. If forced to choose then DKs break fairly evenly, but narrowly for Labour.
Strewth. If don't knows are breaking for Labour (even slightly) then that's devastating. If the crossover age is 75+ then...well.
Yeah, but, no. All the don’t knows breaking Tory might vote on the day, whilst all those favouring Labour stay at home, might not remotely be even split from each.
Something has happened reasonably recently for large number of voters to decide conclusively against Tories. I think it might have been Conference Season. I think Radical Rishi Unleashed & The Great HS2 Surrender has gone down badly with voters. Conservative drift downward seems to stem from that week?
The HS2 decision really fucked the infrastructure industry in this country and has caused chaos, quite aside from it being economically devastating.
I'm still furious about it. And the idea that Sunak thought this was evidence of him taking great decisions for the long-term that would appeal to voters.
I mean, WTF?
It's particularly disappointing when you consider how successful the Elizabeth Line has been. It's possible the enormous construction bill will be paid off within 20 years because passenger numbers are so high.
Yes but London is so much more important than Manc. Apparently.
The whole decision is pure idiocy. Especially as the line will get built eventually, just for even more money. The HS2 decision took me from thinking Sunak was just an annoying wee prick to actively loathing him.
And still no direct trains from anywhere north, west, south or east of London, a couple of stations on HS1 excepted, on which one can go to the rest of Europe without a greater or lesser trek on foot with luggage and offspring etc through a still seedy part of London.
A bodge perhaps, but surely they can find a line along which to bore an airport style transit, moving walkways etc. between Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross.
I know it's busy down there, but surely that's the minimum.
If Crossrail 2 ever gets built they'll be connected on that. Probably never will though, despite it being in London there's not enough money now.
The idea of a moving walkway would be to not go into the deep underground to catch a train, by the time you've walked down and up again, you could've got to/from Euston at street level. And certainly King's Cross - St. Pancras is "cross the road" and only a madman would go down and back up into the shared underground station or even into an underground walkway.
I still never quite got the 15 minute transfer from LNER to Javelin to work though, though generally I did have family in tow. But the main factor in that is platform to concourse within each station.
It’s about an 8 minute walk if that. We’ve all done more than that in airports
All they need to do is make it obvious and dedicated and shelter it from weather. Tunnels not required
If not a tunnel, then an elevated and enclosed bridge/walkway, above the street and going between the two stations without exposure to the outside elements.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
Only in the last few years have I ever encountered this confusion. The 1800s was 1800-1809. No question. The overall century was the 19th century
Its modern young people getting confused as they try and buy settees in Aldi. Twats
The eighteen hundreds has always been the nineteenth century.
The nineteen hundreds has always been the twentieth century.
The nineteen sixties, nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties are quite literally all within the nineteen hundreds.
There's no confusion, unless you have further information to confirm the zero that you are implying, that's how numbers and maths works.
Dylan Difford @Dylan_Difford · 2h The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
Vote Tory and be 11/1 to die before you get another vote. Vote safe, pick another party.
Can we put those deceased ones down as a maybe?
You could give 'em post dated postal votes for the next few elections.
We already effectively did that with Brexit. I think that's enough.
🌹Labour 42% (-) 🌳Conservatives 27% (-1) 🔶Liberal Democrats 10% (-1) 🟣Reform UK 9% (+1) 💚Greens 8% (+2) Labour lead of 15 Field work 9/1-11/1
Bad news for Davey, in this first poll with the PO Scandal leading the news.
"People think Ed Davey should resign 42%-19% - again it isn't unusual for people to say a politician (even fictional ones should resign). But more worryingly for the Lib Dem leader his own supporters are split 28%-33% on the question of if he should go."
One thing I like of this pollster is how they break down by generation, and also try to squeeze the initial "Don't Knows" into a choice.
Lab ahead with all age groups under 75, even boomers. If forced to choose then DKs break fairly evenly, but narrowly for Labour.
Strewth. If don't knows are breaking for Labour (even slightly) then that's devastating. If the crossover age is 75+ then...well.
Yeah, but, no. All the don’t knows breaking Tory might vote on the day, whilst all those favouring Labour stay at home, might not remotely be even split from each.
Something has happened reasonably recently for large number of voters to decide conclusively against Tories. I think it might have been Conference Season. I think Radical Rishi Unleashed & The Great HS2 Surrender has gone down badly with voters. Conservative drift downward seems to stem from that week?
The HS2 decision really fucked the infrastructure industry in this country and has caused chaos, quite aside from it being economically devastating.
I'm still furious about it. And the idea that Sunak thought this was evidence of him taking great decisions for the long-term that would appeal to voters.
I mean, WTF?
It's particularly disappointing when you consider how successful the Elizabeth Line has been. It's possible the enormous construction bill will be paid off within 20 years because passenger numbers are so high.
Yes but London is so much more important than Manc. Apparently.
The whole decision is pure idiocy. Especially as the line will get built eventually, just for even more money. The HS2 decision took me from thinking Sunak was just an annoying wee prick to actively loathing him.
And still no direct trains from anywhere north, west, south or east of London, a couple of stations on HS1 excepted, on which one can go to the rest of Europe without a greater or lesser trek on foot with luggage and offspring etc through a still seedy part of London.
A bodge perhaps, but surely they can find a line along which to bore an airport style transit, moving walkways etc. between Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross.
I know it's busy down there, but surely that's the minimum.
If Crossrail 2 ever gets built they'll be connected on that. Probably never will though, despite it being in London there's not enough money now.
The idea of a moving walkway would be to not go into the deep underground to catch a train, by the time you've walked down and up again, you could've got to/from Euston at street level. And certainly King's Cross - St. Pancras is "cross the road" and only a madman would go down and back up into the shared underground station or even into an underground walkway.
I still never quite got the 15 minute transfer from LNER to Javelin to work though, though generally I did have family in tow. But the main factor in that is platform to concourse within each station.
It’s about an 8 minute walk if that. We’ve all done more than that in airports
All they need to do is make it obvious and dedicated and shelter it from weather. Tunnels not required
If not a tunnel, then an elevated and enclosed bridge/walkway, above the street and going between the two stations without exposure to the outside elements.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
Only in the last few years have I ever encountered this confusion. The 1800s was 1800-1809. No question. The overall century was the 19th century
Its modern young people getting confused as they try and buy settees in Aldi. Twats
"The Post Office threatened and lied to the BBC in 2015 ahead of a Panorama programme with a Horizon whistleblower which exposed the scandal, the public broadcaster said. The BBC said experts who were interviewed for the programme were sent intimidating letters by Post Office lawyers who also sent letters to the broadcaster, threatening to sue Panorama. According to the BBC, senior Post Office managers also told the broadcaster at the time that no staff or the company who developed Horizon, Fujitsu, could access post office operators accounts, despite being warned four years earlier this was possible. The BBC says the claims did not stop the programme, titled Trouble at the Post Office, but it did delay the broadcast of the show. The Post Office has been contacted for comment. It told the BBC it will not comment while the public inquiry continues."
“The Post Office threatened and lied to the BBC in 2015 ahead of a Panorama programme with a Horizon whistleblower”
Threats and lies as late as 2015 really does help Davey case avoiding becoming the sole sacrificial lamb the Tories are doing overtime to turn him into.
In fact it helps everyone up to 2015 struggling to get to the truth. But doesn’t really help anyone in power positions after the 2015 whistleblowers, unfortunately.
Over Christmas I put a lesson together for Church about Sacrificial Lambs - maybe Davey should hire me as a subject matter expert 😇
It’s funny how this one has turned around in the space of just one week, the heat now coming to the Tories, like is it really true the Tory government is employing someone on tax payers money whose job is simply to ensure Fujitsu wins government contracts?
how many members benefit when Fujitsu wins government contracts? Lobbying! And money! can probably be the only explanation why the Tories didn’t take the PO victims side against Fujitsu, for the last nine long years? 😟
And the proposed new Type 83s (which basically are proposed cruisers) look great on paper but I'll be surprised if they ever see the light of day as specced.
And if we do we'll probably just get 2 or 3 sub-par ones.
I predict they'll split it like T26/T31 and do 2+2 or 2+3 T83 and a hypothetical T9x which will be a much cheaper vessel. Maybe T83 will be the cruiser concept and T9x the lightly crewed arsenal concept.
Bear in mind that the government now has two surface combatant yards it has to keep on life support no matter what: Govan and Rosyth. Rosyth is going to have to be given something to do after T31 and a split T83/T9x program would solve that, save money and mean less crew will be needed.
It's also notable that zero planning has commenced on any QE replacement. That program took 26 years from initiation to first (sort of) operational deployment. If the RN intends to replace them then they should have already started but the silence is deafening.
When was the last time a Hi/Lo program like that actually saved money, as opposed to it being cheaper to just build more of the "Hi" option?
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
Only in the last few years have I ever encountered this confusion. The 1800s was 1800-1809. No question. The overall century was the 19th century
Its modern young people getting confused as they try and buy settees in Aldi. Twats
The eighteen hundreds has always been the nineteenth century.
The nineteen hundreds has always been the twentieth century.
The nineteen sixties, nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties are quite literally all within the nineteen hundreds.
There's no confusion, unless you have further information to confirm the zero that you are implying, that's how numbers and maths works.
And, no. That’s a hard no
“The 1800s was the decade from 1800 to 1809”. That is the primary and precise meaning. Anything else diminishes the accuracy of the language so only twats use it your way, especially when you have the alternative “19th century”
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
Only in the last few years have I ever encountered this confusion. The 1800s was 1800-1809. No question. The overall century was the 19th century
Its modern young people getting confused as they try and buy settees in Aldi. Twats
The eighteen hundreds has always been the nineteenth century.
The nineteen hundreds has always been the twentieth century.
The nineteen sixties, nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties are quite literally all within the nineteen hundreds.
There's no confusion, unless you have further information to confirm the zero that you are implying, that's how numbers and maths works.
And, no. That’s a hard no
“The 1800s was the decade from 1800 to 1809”. That is the primary and precise meaning. Anything else diminishes the accuracy of the language so only twats use it your way, especially when you have the alternative “19th century”
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
The discussion in our newspapers, before the passage of Initiative 200, was surprisingly informative. Two bits stand out for me: First, affirmative action in contracting mostly benefited some wealthy white women. Washington is a community property state, and so wives often already owned half of their husbands' construction firms. A visit to a lawyer to transfer 2 percent of the firm to the family's little daughter, and you have a female-owned firm, giving the firm an advantage in winning contracts from the state.
Second, Japanese Americans were given an advantage in contracting, but not admissions, so they were simultaneously treated as non-white, and white.
(Hillary Clinton benefited from affirmative action while in Arkansas. The federal government reserved some TV and radio licenses for women and minority-owned firms. She joined a group that won such a license. And immediately the group sold the license, at a nice profit, to a real company.)
I enjoyed watching Edward de Bono's Thinking Course Lectures from the early 80s which I stumbled across recently on YouTube. (Picture quality isn't great but I can't find any other versions).
And the proposed new Type 83s (which basically are proposed cruisers) look great on paper but I'll be surprised if they ever see the light of day as specced.
And if we do we'll probably just get 2 or 3 sub-par ones.
I predict they'll split it like T26/T31 and do 2+2 or 2+3 T83 and a hypothetical T9x which will be a much cheaper vessel. Maybe T83 will be the cruiser concept and T9x the lightly crewed arsenal concept.
Bear in mind that the government now has two surface combatant yards it has to keep on life support no matter what: Govan and Rosyth. Rosyth is going to have to be given something to do after T31 and a split T83/T9x program would solve that, save money and mean less crew will be needed.
It's also notable that zero planning has commenced on any QE replacement. That program took 26 years from initiation to first (sort of) operational deployment. If the RN intends to replace them then they should have already started but the silence is deafening.
I wonder if they'll extend the lifespan of the carriers to 2060 and won't seriously think about replacement planning until the early 2030s.
The origin of the word is interesting. (Wikipedia) Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a scholar at the then modern Göttingen University developed a concept dividing mankind into five races in the revised 1795 edition of his De generis humani varietate nativa (On the Natural Variety of Mankind). Although Blumenbach's concept later gave rise to scientific racism, his arguments were basically anti-racist, since he underlined that mankind as a whole forms one single species, and points out that the transition from one race to another is so gradual that the distinctions between the races presented by him are "very arbitrary". Blumenbach counts the inhabitants of North Africa among the "Caucasian race", grouping the other Africans as "Ethiopian race"...
Dylan Difford @Dylan_Difford · 2h The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
If this holds, it leads to the lowest number of Conservative votes in over 100 years and the lowest since universal suffrage.
It doesn't seem that long ago we were debating whether Labour would be able to form a minority government even if the Tories were the largest party.
This is what pollsters don't reflect. The figures they publish imagine a closed pot of voters who just switch.
But the age distribution of voting intention means that the gap between Conservative and Labour narrows by around 800k due to older voters dying, whilst a 300-400k narrowing can be imagined from first time voters (even without Corbyn mania). That's a 3-4% swing outwith how polling normally represents things.
And at every election, just to stand still, the Tories now need a constant moving walkway of people getting older, grumpier and Tories. But this time your 50 year old Labourite ain't turning into a 55 year old Tory are they? The opposite. Until voting patterns change again, this will hold true.
And we also know Con <-> DNV and Lab <-> DNV will net in Labour's favour, though. The data tables in this instance do reflect vote -> non vote, though not really the opposite.
11 months to a probable Labour victory and PBers are already losing their minds over the threat of militant vegetarianism, 15-minute cities and, bizarrely, Ed Davey.
Election now, for all our sakes.
As far as I notice, you're the one who keeps bringing up the stupid idea of "15-minute cities", I don't see many others doing so.
15 minute cities, like vegetarianism, is fine if its voluntary and you don't force your views on others.
When you want to push your beliefs upon others, its discriminatory, wrong, and don't be surprised if you get a backlash.
15-minute cities are a planning concept.
They just mean that the key facilities you need for daily life are available within 15 minutes' walk or bike ride.
That's it. Full stop. I'm not sure how that can at all be construed as "forcing your views on others". No one is going to frogmarch you down to the corner shop 15 minutes away and force you to do all your shopping there.
Two ways. Firstly, "planning" is forcing people, if its a requirement.
If you mean "build it and they will come", we're going to design this here and let people choose if they want to move here or not - then fine, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Compelling it so that design has to be used everywhere, even where people don't want it, that's a bad thing.
Secondly, if you're putting up barriers that make it harder for people to drive to alternatives, then that's anti-competitive and wrong too.
I have a Co-op within a 15 minute walk of me - considerably less in fact. I almost never go there though, unless its literally for just bread or milk or something like that. I get my meat delivered to me from a butcher I order online from, and the rest of my food I typically get from Asda or Aldi which I can drive to in less than 15 minutes and fill my boot with a much better selection of food, for cheaper too.
“Asda”
“Aldi”
Can’t we get some sort of tier system on PB where these people post “below stairs” as it were, and we don’t have to see their ludicrous proletarian comments? Some of us are sensitive
I’ll mention your suggestion to Robert as I too am triggered by proles and things from a lower tax bracket.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
Only in the last few years have I ever encountered this confusion. The 1800s was 1800-1809. No question. The overall century was the 19th century
Its modern young people getting confused as they try and buy settees in Aldi. Twats
The eighteen hundreds has always been the nineteenth century.
The nineteen hundreds has always been the twentieth century.
The nineteen sixties, nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties are quite literally all within the nineteen hundreds.
There's no confusion, unless you have further information to confirm the zero that you are implying, that's how numbers and maths works.
And, no. That’s a hard no
There are no "hard no"s in language usage. As the (far more prescriptive than you) French have been forced to concede.
Is it just that the Knappers' Gazette has an actual style guide ?
11 months to a probable Labour victory and PBers are already losing their minds over the threat of militant vegetarianism, 15-minute cities and, bizarrely, Ed Davey.
Election now, for all our sakes.
As far as I notice, you're the one who keeps bringing up the stupid idea of "15-minute cities", I don't see many others doing so.
15 minute cities, like vegetarianism, is fine if its voluntary and you don't force your views on others.
When you want to push your beliefs upon others, its discriminatory, wrong, and don't be surprised if you get a backlash.
15-minute cities are a planning concept.
They just mean that the key facilities you need for daily life are available within 15 minutes' walk or bike ride.
That's it. Full stop. I'm not sure how that can at all be construed as "forcing your views on others". No one is going to frogmarch you down to the corner shop 15 minutes away and force you to do all your shopping there.
Two ways. Firstly, "planning" is forcing people, if its a requirement.
If you mean "build it and they will come", we're going to design this here and let people choose if they want to move here or not - then fine, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Compelling it so that design has to be used everywhere, even where people don't want it, that's a bad thing.
Secondly, if you're putting up barriers that make it harder for people to drive to alternatives, then that's anti-competitive and wrong too.
I have a Co-op within a 15 minute walk of me - considerably less in fact. I almost never go there though, unless its literally for just bread or milk or something like that. I get my meat delivered to me from a butcher I order online from, and the rest of my food I typically get from Asda or Aldi which I can drive to in less than 15 minutes and fill my boot with a much better selection of food, for cheaper too.
“Asda”
“Aldi”
Can’t we get some sort of tier system on PB where these people post “below stairs” as it were, and we don’t have to see their ludicrous proletarian comments? Some of us are sensitive
I’ll mention your suggestion to Robert as I too am triggered by proles and things from a lower tax bracket.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
If someone says to me that something happened sometime "in the eighteen hundreds" I'll take it to mean it happened between 1st January 1800 and 31st December 1899. But that's just me. I don't think there's a right v wrong on this one.
11 months to a probable Labour victory and PBers are already losing their minds over the threat of militant vegetarianism, 15-minute cities and, bizarrely, Ed Davey.
Election now, for all our sakes.
As far as I notice, you're the one who keeps bringing up the stupid idea of "15-minute cities", I don't see many others doing so.
15 minute cities, like vegetarianism, is fine if its voluntary and you don't force your views on others.
When you want to push your beliefs upon others, its discriminatory, wrong, and don't be surprised if you get a backlash.
15-minute cities are a planning concept.
They just mean that the key facilities you need for daily life are available within 15 minutes' walk or bike ride.
That's it. Full stop. I'm not sure how that can at all be construed as "forcing your views on others". No one is going to frogmarch you down to the corner shop 15 minutes away and force you to do all your shopping there.
Two ways. Firstly, "planning" is forcing people, if its a requirement.
If you mean "build it and they will come", we're going to design this here and let people choose if they want to move here or not - then fine, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Compelling it so that design has to be used everywhere, even where people don't want it, that's a bad thing.
Secondly, if you're putting up barriers that make it harder for people to drive to alternatives, then that's anti-competitive and wrong too.
I have a Co-op within a 15 minute walk of me - considerably less in fact. I almost never go there though, unless its literally for just bread or milk or something like that. I get my meat delivered to me from a butcher I order online from, and the rest of my food I typically get from Asda or Aldi which I can drive to in less than 15 minutes and fill my boot with a much better selection of food, for cheaper too.
“Asda”
“Aldi”
Can’t we get some sort of tier system on PB where these people post “below stairs” as it were, and we don’t have to see their ludicrous proletarian comments? Some of us are sensitive
I’ll mention your suggestion to Robert as I too am triggered by proles and things from a lower tax bracket.
POUNDBAKE!
I’m cancelling my Lloyds bank account as they are offering me enhanced cash back at Aldi and Morrisons.
If someone says to me that something happened sometime "in the eighteen hundreds" I'll take it to mean it happened between 1st January 1800 and 31st December 1899. But that's just me. I don't think there's a right v wrong on this one.
That's what most people understand by it. Technically it's 1801 to 1900.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
Only in the last few years have I ever encountered this confusion. The 1800s was 1800-1809. No question. The overall century was the 19th century
Its modern young people getting confused as they try and buy settees in Aldi. Twats
The eighteen hundreds has always been the nineteenth century.
The nineteen hundreds has always been the twentieth century.
The nineteen sixties, nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties are quite literally all within the nineteen hundreds.
There's no confusion, unless you have further information to confirm the zero that you are implying, that's how numbers and maths works.
And, no. That’s a hard no
There are no "hard no"s in language usage. As the (far more prescriptive than you) French have been forced to concede.
Is it just that the Knappers' Gazette has an actual style guide ?
Chicago Manual of Style (huge in US publishing) notes that the eighteen hundreds refers to the nineteenth century as a whole and that the first two decades of a century cannot be treated in same way as source of confusion! The 1900s would be taken to be the whole of the twentieth century for example.
"Chicago defers to the preference of its authors in this matter."
If someone says to me that something happened sometime "in the eighteen hundreds" I'll take it to mean it happened between 1st January 1800 and 31st December 1899. But that's just me. I don't think there's a right v wrong on this one.
Damn it. When did all the stars of my formative years get so old? So many nights spent well into the early hours listening to her alongside Bob Harris and John Peel. I found so much new (and old) music because of them.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
Why are Brexiteers not campaigning on bringing back AD dates?
If someone says to me that something happened sometime "in the eighteen hundreds" I'll take it to mean it happened between 1st January 1800 and 31st December 1899. But that's just me. I don't think there's a right v wrong on this one.
Agreed. Though with characteristic pb tenacity, we have seized terrier-like on the fourth most important issue here.
Who on God’s green earth writes “negroid” in a public-ish document in 2010???
Even yer average klansman wouid be baulking at that in 2010
I wonder if it is just some ancient text from the 1920s - or the 1300s - which never got amended
Well quite. People were balked at that in the 1990s.
Sign of an organisation that's lost its moral compass.
Anyone following the Inquiry live will have been struck, apart from anything else, by the low quality the staff employed by the PO, at all levels.
It was in a perverse way fortuitous that the first witness to appear after the TV series had been screened was Stephen Bradshaw. It was a relatively large audience therefore that was able to witness the kind of pond life the PO engaged as so-called investigators.
Regular viewers will be abe to confirm that the respondents higher up the food chain were not much of an improvement.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
Yep. BCE/BC is a real pain when talking about early and late.
But in archaeology it gets worse. The common usage when looking at dating methods these days is BP (Before Present). This is used for things like RC dating and Dendrochronology. 'Present' in those terms means 1950. So you date everythiung back from tha point.
In RC dating there is an additional complication because RC dates have to be calibrated using dendrochonology. So dates are recorded either as BCE/BP for calibrated dates and bce/bp (lower case) for uncalibrated dates.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
Why are Brexiteers not campaigning on bringing back AD dates?
Surely Mogg is most unhappy.
What’s wrong with proper dates - years named after the Consuls?
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
Yep. BCE/BC is a real pain when talking about early and late.
But in archaeology it gets worse. The common usage when looking at dating methods these days is BP (Before Present). This is used for things like RC dating and Dendrochronology. 'Present' in those terms means 1950. So you date everythiung back from tha point.
In RC dating there is an additional complication because RC dates have to be calibrated using dendrochonology. So dates are recorded either as BCE/BP for calibrated dates and bce/bp (lower case) for uncalibrated dates.
Vaguely relatedly, "Modern Art" refers to anything from the 1910s, more accurately from Cezanne, and there is a case from Courbet onwards.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
Yep. BCE/BC is a real pain when talking about early and late.
But in archaeology it gets worse. The common usage when looking at dating methods these days is BP (Before Present). This is used for things like RC dating and Dendrochronology. 'Present' in those terms means 1950. So you date everythiung back from tha point.
In RC dating there is an additional complication because RC dates have to be calibrated using dendrochonology. So dates are recorded either as BCE/BP for calibrated dates and bce/bp (lower case) for uncalibrated dates.
But that's really only of relevance to Rees Mogg and a handful of other dinosaurs.
If someone says to me that something happened sometime "in the eighteen hundreds" I'll take it to mean it happened between 1st January 1800 and 31st December 1899. But that's just me. I don't think there's a right v wrong on this one.
Between 6 and 7pm for me.
Yes I like that. Military. Topping will use it that way.
"We rendez vous at the Red Lion. Eighteen hundred sharp. Mine's a dry sherry if you're first."
David Teeger has been relieved of the South Africa Under-19 captaincy a week before the World Cup over concerns for his safety following his comments in support of Israeli soldiers in the ongoing conflict with Palestine.
South Africa making the case against Israel for genocide at the International Court of Justice, yesterday. http://tinyurl.com/huma38y6
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
Yep. BCE/BC is a real pain when talking about early and late.
But in archaeology it gets worse. The common usage when looking at dating methods these days is BP (Before Present). This is used for things like RC dating and Dendrochronology. 'Present' in those terms means 1950. So you date everythiung back from tha point.
In RC dating there is an additional complication because RC dates have to be calibrated using dendrochonology. So dates are recorded either as BCE/BP for calibrated dates and bce/bp (lower case) for uncalibrated dates.
Thanks, that's a new one on me. And here I am thinking today is a simple 30 Jumada II 1445.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
Yep. BCE/BC is a real pain when talking about early and late.
But in archaeology it gets worse. The common usage when looking at dating methods these days is BP (Before Present). This is used for things like RC dating and Dendrochronology. 'Present' in those terms means 1950. So you date everythiung back from tha point.
In RC dating there is an additional complication because RC dates have to be calibrated using dendrochonology. So dates are recorded either as BCE/BP for calibrated dates and bce/bp (lower case) for uncalibrated dates.
Vaguely relatedly, "Modern Art" refers to anything from the 1910s, more accurately from Cezanne, and there is a case from Courbet onwards.
While "postmodern" can refer to things from half a century ago.
Late to the party but interesting header @Malmesbury, thanks. I must admit I read the title, thought “why are pb.com branching out into conspiracy theories?” and scrolled down expecting to see @Leon or @Luckyguy1983 or one of our other pet conspirators authoring it.
I think it’s a compliment to say that, when I saw who wrote it, I scrolled back up and read the whole thing.
I am with @algarkirk that much data is needed before it can move beyond the realms of lizard-people.
All the same, assuming there is some truth to the lack of accountability, I do wonder whether this is just a very imperfect antidote to our current tendency to fetishise individual responsibility in our culture.
Sure, Paula Vennells is an inadequate human, but we should not have systems or cultures that allow individual inadequacies to have this big an impact. Ergo, individuals who are held responsible for systemic failures probably aren’t as responsible as we think they are.
This doesn’t mean the opposite is true I.e. that they have much talent. I’d argue few people stand out much either because of their talent or their mendacity. It’s the systems and culture (largely a product of late-stage capitalism) that are more at fault for eg the Horizon mess.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
Today's Post Office witness is one of the external lawyers who is being asked about why the PostOffice seems unable to disclose what it is repeatedly asked for, accurately or on time.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
It's a bit wokey. Use BC instead.
In terms of the numbers, 'late' and 'early' are confusing but not so much the centuries, which mirror the AD ones: twentieth century BC is 2000-1901BC.
If someone says to me that something happened sometime "in the eighteen hundreds" I'll take it to mean it happened between 1st January 1800 and 31st December 1899. But that's just me. I don't think there's a right v wrong on this one.
Between 6 and 7pm for me.
Yes I like that. Military. Topping will use it that way.
"We rendez vous at the Red Lion. Eighteen hundred sharp. Mine's a dry sherry if you're first."
Especially the sherry they serve at a fantastic little bar I happen to know of out North West London way.
Late to the party but interesting header @Malmesbury, thanks. I must admit I read the title, thought “why are pb.com branching out into conspiracy theories?” and scrolled down expecting to see @Leon or @Luckyguy1983 or one of our other pet conspirators authoring it.
I think it’s a compliment to say that, when I saw who wrote it, I scrolled back up and read the whole thing.
I am with @algarkirk that much data is needed before it can move beyond the realms of lizard-people.
All the same, assuming there is some truth to the lack of accountability, I do wonder whether this is just a very imperfect antidote to our current tendency to fetishise individual responsibility in our culture.
Sure, Paula Vennells is an inadequate human, but we should not have systems or cultures that allow individual inadequacies to have this big an impact. Ergo, individuals who are held responsible for systemic failures probably aren’t as responsible as we think they are.
This doesn’t mean the opposite is true I.e. that they have much talent. I’d argue few people stand out much either because of their talent or their mendacity. It’s the systems and culture (largely a product of late-stage capitalism) that are more at fault for eg the Horizon mess.
What about we hold people to account for the things they are in charge of?
Then they might have an incentive to run their organisations well.
Late Stage Capitalism is just like “woke” - a label that has ceased to mean more than an insult
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
Why are Brexiteers not campaigning on bringing back AD dates?
Surely Mogg is most unhappy.
What’s wrong with proper dates - years named after the Consuls?
We need some proper confusion with local variation. Each year should be named by the current bishop and numbered by the year since his/her translation or consecration, giving us 43 systems in England alone. In Canterbury we would be in the 11th of Justin.
David Teeger has been relieved of the South Africa Under-19 captaincy a week before the World Cup over concerns for his safety following his comments in support of Israeli soldiers in the ongoing conflict with Palestine.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
Why are Brexiteers not campaigning on bringing back AD dates?
Surely Mogg is most unhappy.
What’s wrong with proper dates - years named after the Consuls?
We need some proper confusion with local variation. Each year should be named by the current bishop and numbered by the year since his/her translation or consecration, giving us 43 systems in England alone. In Canterbury we would be in the 11th of Justin.
I'm surprised DA hasn't started in on revolutionary calendars.
Meanwhile, as if PB hasn't spent enough time on the post office, arguably one of the most extraordinary and shocking elements of the whole thing is the "racist categorisation" of the SPOs.
I mean ffs we are in the 21st century and we are (they were) still using those terms. It's a real WTAF moment. Vennells or whoever is in charge should get a thrashing for that alone.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
The eighteen hundreds does refer to the 19th century just as the nineteen hundreds does refer to the 20th century. Not just 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 respectively. I assume you meant until 1809 as 1810 would never be part of that decade anyway if you were going off decades.
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
The 1910s are the nineteen-tens. That just works. The decade before is the Edwardian era (despite him being only one of ten English king Edwards - potatoes excluded - and a fairly undistinguished one at that).
Even after decades of use I still find it hard to relate BCE centuries to the actual number involved, in two ways. I have to stop and think that the 4th century BCE is 400-300, and stop even longer to work out that a reference to 'the late 7th century BCE' means not the 690s but the 610s. Is this affliction common?
It's a bit wokey. Use BC instead.
In terms of the numbers, 'late' and 'early' are confusing but not so much the centuries, which mirror the AD ones: twentieth century BC is 2000-1901BC.
Thanks. I use AD/BC most of the time, but context is all. PB is a bit multicultural for systems reflecting but one religious tradition.
Amanda Spielman. Crashed and burned at OFQUAL, overseeing catastrophic changes to exams to somehow make them worse, went to OFSTED where on her own admission things were so bad it ended completely discredited.
Susan Acland-Hood - chief executive of Courts and Probation, where she oversaw the collapse of the probation service. Then to education where between boozy parties, bungled lockdown regulations, the impending scandal at Oak National Academy, the errors over school budgets and schools literally falling down around us she has wrecked what was left of the school system too.
Sam Freedman - oversaw the academies programme, went to Teach First when that had to be paused due to innumerable scandals, lasted less than two years there (even less long than Rory Gribbell) and now lectures on public policy at the IfG telling other people how to get it right.
Dominic Cummings - a finger in all these pies, where he earned a reputation for mindless arrogance and total incompetence, ran one of the Brexit campaigns and then made chief of staff at No. 10 where following the catastrophic decision to scrap May's deal and sign one much more favourable to the EU he oversaw the early stages of Covid including the disastrous drinking culture inside government.
And that's just education, and without even thinking hard.
But it's the politicians who appointed these no marks.
I was pondering Starmer's tooth brushing intervention and my first impression was the banal absurdity of supervised oral hygiene for children in schools. Then I read that dental interventions are the main driver for child hospital admissions in the UK.
I cast my mind back to the dreaded moment when a cheery young dentist would tow the Worcestershire CC dental caravan into the school car park for a week of fillings and milk teeth extractions. Imagine the long term saving to the NHS for two salaries and a mobile dental surgery in each education authority.
We had so much as children in the 1970s and then someone in Government decided we couldn't afford this and we couldn't afford that (making no consideration for the costs down the line). The nanny state in the context of children may have been Communism, but sometimes it worked.
It wasn't the NU10K that broke our nation, and if they did,it was at the behest of their political masters.
I only partially agree. Ministers clearly have sometimes put part of their chumocracy forward to unsuitable roles, or after earlier failures elsewhere, but (particularly recently) the speed at which ministers have moved jobs means they've had to rely on civil servants to advise them of potential appointees - and the civil servants will have had more contact with senior bods in the field, and are themselves only waiting retirement to move into the NU10K Proper themselves. While ministers should do a minimum of independent due diligence checking themselves, they should be able to rely on officials for the bulk of it.
Maybe we should all vote for incumbent Conservative candidates at the next GE. Unless the polls change by the time of the election the queue for recently ex-MPs to join the ranks of NU10K will grow exponentially.
A new Emerson College Polling/WHDH New Hampshire survey finds former President Donald Trump leading the Republican Primary with 44% support, followed by Nikki Haley with 28%. Haley has gained ten points since November, while Trump has lost five. Chris Christie, who suspended his campaign on Wednesday evening, received 12% of voter support. Ron DeSantis holds 7%, and Vivek Ramaswamy holds 4%, while five percent remain undecided.
11 months to a probable Labour victory and PBers are already losing their minds over the threat of militant vegetarianism, 15-minute cities and, bizarrely, Ed Davey.
Election now, for all our sakes.
As far as I notice, you're the one who keeps bringing up the stupid idea of "15-minute cities", I don't see many others doing so.
15 minute cities, like vegetarianism, is fine if its voluntary and you don't force your views on others.
When you want to push your beliefs upon others, its discriminatory, wrong, and don't be surprised if you get a backlash.
No one has ever wanted to force “15 minute cities” on others. That’s pure conspiracy theory.
So nobody wants to make it a planning requirement? Nobody wants to stand in the way of construction if it's not met?
You may want to get your story straight by having a conversation with @El_Capitano because he gladly wants to stand in the way of "Barratt Homes or David Wilson Homes" getting some much-needed houses built.
Are the Tories really going to go into the next election campaigning for public services to be further away?
I'm not a Tory so can't answer that.
But get your story straight.
Is nobody trying to force 15 minute cities on others?
Or is it a good thing that they are?
You keep flirting between both with no shame whatsoever.
No one is stopping you from driving 30 minutes to see a GP in a neighbouring town. You do you.
That's not the question.
Are you supporting planning restrictions that prevent people building homes during the middle of a housing crisis?
I made a silly comment about some PBers losing their minds about 15 minute cities and vegetarians and...
Take a step away from Facebook for a few weeks. Will do you some good.
Still avoiding the question.
Are you in favour of planning restrictions that can be abused by NIMBYs during a housing shortage? Yes or no?
If no, we're on the same page. If yes, you're in the wrong and you know it so are embarrassed to admit it.
I am in favour of no new housing without basic sanitation, so yes, I suppose I am.
But consider where I used to live. The sanitation was full up capacity wise - the council blocked future housing developments till it was sorted. What else could they do?
BR thinks houses should still be allowed. Are we to have a new plant built for one house, two ... 200, or a full load for the plant? And where is the money coming from? Severn Trent's profits (for instance)? It has to come from the developer - they are the ones wanting planning permission big enough to justifyt a new plant and they are the only ones with money.
How this squares with BR's demands fior piecemeal individual development like a 1920s bungaloid cancer, and trhe current government demand for 101% efficiency in every public service, I have absolutely no idea and leave the two of you to make sense of it all.
It absolutely should not come from the developer, the developer is not responsible for the water firm, the water firm is.
Houses aren't full of shit anyway, people are, especially you it seems still regurgitating this shit despite having been called on it repeatedly. Our population has grown by nearly 10 million people in a generation, yes that means more housing and more treatment plants and whatever else is needed.
You make it efficient by everyone taking responsibility for their own responsibilities. Housing developers should be responsible for building housing and absolutely nothing else. Sewage companies should be responsible for treating sewage - and in your case its nationalised anyway, so it is your government's fault at Holyrood more than housing developers if there's still not enough waste treatment as that's their wholly-owned responsibility.
Developers are the reason the demand for sewerage moves around from place to place and new plants need to be built. Simple as that.
You may think you live in a wall to wall 1950s shite version of LA, but I live in an area where there is plenty of open space with rather little sewerage treatment in between. It's called 'countryside with towns here and there'. You can't connect every fucking field between Edinburgh and Carlisle to sewage plants just because some developer might want to build Barratt'type houses in the middle of nowhere with parking for 3 cars perh house and no facilities closer than Riccarton Junction.
No, population growth, people growing up and migration is the reason people move from place to place.
Our population has grown by ten million due to immigration and the old not dying and people having kids. Not because of construction firms.
If you want to reverse that rather than permit construction then you either need a combination of sterilisation of people so they can't have kids and/or forced abortions against their will, forced emigration of people who live in this country, or murdering/euthanising people.
Or we could, you know, actually build some homes for the people who live here, reverse our ten million home shortage to end the housing crisis and invest in whatever facilities are actually necessary.
Doesn't change the fact that the capital cost of the shit transport and processing has to be done.
No dispute that people should pay the running costs. But the former, *at any specific locality*, is a specific externality of the developer building at that site. So it has to be paid for, by someone. There aren't any people living there, now.
So the developer can pay from the cost of building and the profits from selling.
It's a matter of opinion, in one sense, and you don't like paying externalities as a matter of principle. Sure. But public sector finances are getting so tight it's becoming blindingly clear that the above is the only way to go in any realistic sense.
On topic, I'm not sure it's that simple. Get rid of them all and you'd just get another lot. Someone has to run all these businesses and organisations.
It's the groupthink, lack of accountability and integrity that's the issue and I think that's more of a structural and values problem.
I agree, and citing "Common Cause" in the header has a whiff of conspiracy theory and populism to it.
What evidence does the writer have that any of his "NU10k" have had any training by Common Cause?
I agree that any conspiracy is far fetched and fanciful. It is more a case of people like us looking after people like us.
In principle, people should be able to make mistakes and start again. If that were not so we would end up with almost no decisions made at all. But the reluctance to accept that gross mismanagement requires gross consequences for the individual is very marked in much of our society and not just in the public sector either.
We've barely reached a point of agreeing people should not be rewarded for gross mismanagement, let alone face negative consequences. Rewarded in the sense of moving on and often upwards without pushback
So a bit of performative punishment of a few is probably necessary if we're even to get close to trying to fix the wider issues.
But let's be honest, we're not going to.
The mistake is viewing fthis as some sort of organised Freemasons-type of conspiracy, rather than as a rationally performing system.
The outcome that people who reach the top of business or politics are, nowadays, rarely if ever punished (in any meaningful way) for messing up on the job, is that those punishment decisions sit with other people who are at the top of politics and business, and know that they are just one mistake away from finding themselves in the same position.
The Post Office case is different, in that lawyers sit in judgement, with the one pitfall that a number of lawyers themselves might be in the firing line.
Who on God’s green earth writes “negroid” in a public-ish document in 2010???
Even yer average klansman wouid be baulking at that in 2010
I wonder if it is just some ancient text from the 1920s - or the 1300s - which never got amended
Well quite. People were balked at that in the 1990s.
Sign of an organisation that's lost its moral compass.
Anyone following the Inquiry live will have been struck, apart from anything else, by the low quality the staff employed by the PO, at all levels.
It was in a perverse way fortuitous that the first witness to appear after the TV series had been screened was Stephen Bradshaw. It was a relatively large audience therefore that was able to witness the kind of pond life the PO engaged as so-called investigators.
Regular viewers will be abe to confirm that the respondents higher up the food chain were not much of an improvement.
There's a problem here. A moment's thought would suggest this: Being a Post office investigator is not a job that anyone capable of doing it properly would want to do.
If you would be good at doing it it is obvious that you would look first to police work, criminal defence work, forensic accounting, and a number of other intrinsically interesting fields.
11 months to a probable Labour victory and PBers are already losing their minds over the threat of militant vegetarianism, 15-minute cities and, bizarrely, Ed Davey.
Election now, for all our sakes.
As far as I notice, you're the one who keeps bringing up the stupid idea of "15-minute cities", I don't see many others doing so.
15 minute cities, like vegetarianism, is fine if its voluntary and you don't force your views on others.
When you want to push your beliefs upon others, its discriminatory, wrong, and don't be surprised if you get a backlash.
15-minute cities are a planning concept.
They just mean that the key facilities you need for daily life are available within 15 minutes' walk or bike ride.
That's it. Full stop. I'm not sure how that can at all be construed as "forcing your views on others". No one is going to frogmarch you down to the corner shop 15 minutes away and force you to do all your shopping there.
Two ways. Firstly, "planning" is forcing people, if its a requirement.
If you mean "build it and they will come", we're going to design this here and let people choose if they want to move here or not - then fine, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Compelling it so that design has to be used everywhere, even where people don't want it, that's a bad thing.
Secondly, if you're putting up barriers that make it harder for people to drive to alternatives, then that's anti-competitive and wrong too.
I have a Co-op within a 15 minute walk of me - considerably less in fact. I almost never go there though, unless its literally for just bread or milk or something like that. I get my meat delivered to me from a butcher I order online from, and the rest of my food I typically get from Asda or Aldi which I can drive to in less than 15 minutes and fill my boot with a much better selection of food, for cheaper too.
“Asda”
“Aldi”
Can’t we get some sort of tier system on PB where these people post “below stairs” as it were, and we don’t have to see their ludicrous proletarian comments? Some of us are sensitive
I’ll mention your suggestion to Robert as I too am triggered by proles and things from a lower tax bracket.
The nearest Waitrose to me is 20 miles away at a motorway services. I'd better return to lurking in the basement.
Has anyone made a 'poshness map' based on supermarkets? Might be quite amusing.
PS I reckon Aldi/Lidl are a bit more classless than ASDA, which is definitely Non-U.
11 months to a probable Labour victory and PBers are already losing their minds over the threat of militant vegetarianism, 15-minute cities and, bizarrely, Ed Davey.
Election now, for all our sakes.
As far as I notice, you're the one who keeps bringing up the stupid idea of "15-minute cities", I don't see many others doing so.
15 minute cities, like vegetarianism, is fine if its voluntary and you don't force your views on others.
When you want to push your beliefs upon others, its discriminatory, wrong, and don't be surprised if you get a backlash.
No one has ever wanted to force “15 minute cities” on others. That’s pure conspiracy theory.
So nobody wants to make it a planning requirement? Nobody wants to stand in the way of construction if it's not met?
You may want to get your story straight by having a conversation with @El_Capitano because he gladly wants to stand in the way of "Barratt Homes or David Wilson Homes" getting some much-needed houses built.
Are the Tories really going to go into the next election campaigning for public services to be further away?
I'm not a Tory so can't answer that.
But get your story straight.
Is nobody trying to force 15 minute cities on others?
Or is it a good thing that they are?
You keep flirting between both with no shame whatsoever.
No one is stopping you from driving 30 minutes to see a GP in a neighbouring town. You do you.
That's not the question.
Are you supporting planning restrictions that prevent people building homes during the middle of a housing crisis?
I made a silly comment about some PBers losing their minds about 15 minute cities and vegetarians and...
Take a step away from Facebook for a few weeks. Will do you some good.
Still avoiding the question.
Are you in favour of planning restrictions that can be abused by NIMBYs during a housing shortage? Yes or no?
If no, we're on the same page. If yes, you're in the wrong and you know it so are embarrassed to admit it.
I am in favour of no new housing without basic sanitation, so yes, I suppose I am.
But consider where I used to live. The sanitation was full up capacity wise - the council blocked future housing developments till it was sorted. What else could they do?
BR thinks houses should still be allowed. Are we to have a new plant built for one house, two ... 200, or a full load for the plant? And where is the money coming from? Severn Trent's profits (for instance)? It has to come from the developer - they are the ones wanting planning permission big enough to justifyt a new plant and they are the only ones with money.
How this squares with BR's demands fior piecemeal individual development like a 1920s bungaloid cancer, and trhe current government demand for 101% efficiency in every public service, I have absolutely no idea and leave the two of you to make sense of it all.
It absolutely should not come from the developer, the developer is not responsible for the water firm, the water firm is.
Houses aren't full of shit anyway, people are, especially you it seems still regurgitating this shit despite having been called on it repeatedly. Our population has grown by nearly 10 million people in a generation, yes that means more housing and more treatment plants and whatever else is needed.
You make it efficient by everyone taking responsibility for their own responsibilities. Housing developers should be responsible for building housing and absolutely nothing else. Sewage companies should be responsible for treating sewage - and in your case its nationalised anyway, so it is your government's fault at Holyrood more than housing developers if there's still not enough waste treatment as that's their wholly-owned responsibility.
Developers are the reason the demand for sewerage moves around from place to place and new plants need to be built. Simple as that.
You may think you live in a wall to wall 1950s shite version of LA, but I live in an area where there is plenty of open space with rather little sewerage treatment in between. It's called 'countryside with towns here and there'. You can't connect every fucking field between Edinburgh and Carlisle to sewage plants just because some developer might want to build Barratt'type houses in the middle of nowhere with parking for 3 cars perh house and no facilities closer than Riccarton Junction.
No, population growth, people growing up and migration is the reason people move from place to place.
Our population has grown by ten million due to immigration and the old not dying and people having kids. Not because of construction firms.
If you want to reverse that rather than permit construction then you either need a combination of sterilisation of people so they can't have kids and/or forced abortions against their will, forced emigration of people who live in this country, or murdering/euthanising people.
Or we could, you know, actually build some homes for the people who live here, reverse our ten million home shortage to end the housing crisis and invest in whatever facilities are actually necessary.
Doesn't change the fact that the capital cost of the shit transport and processing has to be done.
No dispute that people should pay the running costs. But the former, *at any specific locality*, is a specific externality of the developer building at that site. So it has to be paid for, by someone. There aren't any people living there, now.
So the developer can pay from the cost of building and the profits from selling.
It's a matter of opinion, in one sense, and you don't like paying externalities as a matter of principle. Sure. But public sector finances are getting so tight it's becoming blindingly clear that the above is the only way to go in any realistic sense.
NO IT IS NOT the externality of developers.
When it comes to the amount of shit emitted 1000 people living in 100 houses = 1000 people living 250 houses = 1000 people living in 500 houses = 1000 people living in 1000 houses.
Overcrowding people so that young adults have to live in their parents homes because they can't afford a home of their own, even if they have jobs and now have kids of their own, does absolutely nothing to deal with either their or YOUR shit.
People should pay for externalities, this however is not an externality.
We await the results of the Letby and PO inquiries to see if the managers involved to face more severe sanctions
The problem HY is it will be the little people who are punished. That is why I think we were so excited that politicians of Davy and Starmer's stature may end up serving jail time.
My mother died as part of the Princess of Wales Hospital neglect saga. Two Filipino nurses were given custodial sentences. The Hospital managers received no sanction. Many remain in post a dozen years later.
Dylan Difford @Dylan_Difford · 2h The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
Vote Tory and be 11/1 to die before you get another vote. Vote safe, pick another party.
Vote Green, and live for ever!
Or, just possibly, approaching death the voter thinks, “stuff the environment!”, and switches parties.
Comments
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/david-teeger-removed-as-south-africa-captain-for-u-19-world-cup-1416352
David Teeger has been relieved of the South Africa Under-19 captaincy a week before the World Cup over concerns for his safety following his comments in support of Israeli soldiers in the ongoing conflict with Palestine.
I still never quite got the 15 minute transfer from LNER to Javelin to work though, though generally I did have family in tow. But the main factor in that is platform to concourse within each station.
IK Brunel once wrote back to a contractor - “If you really were my obedient servant, I would begin with a little flogging.”
As another poster has pointed out, it would be a very interesting journalistic exercise to conduct a systemic analysis - but of whom ?
The top 1% of payrolled employees in the UK - that's 300K individuals - earn an average of £180K
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/earningsandemploymentfrompayasyouearnrealtimeinformationuk/december2023#pay-distribution
The top 0.1% is still 30K individuals, and they earn on average around £500K.
Are we taking about all managers, or just those in public administration... who precisely are these 10K ?
Our population has grown by ten million due to immigration and the old not dying and people having kids. Not because of construction firms.
If you want to reverse that rather than permit construction then you either need a combination of sterilisation of people so they can't have kids and/or forced abortions against their will, forced emigration of people who live in this country, or murdering/euthanising people.
Or we could, you know, actually build some homes for the people who live here, reverse our ten million home shortage to end the housing crisis and invest in whatever facilities are actually necessary.
All they need to do is make it obvious and dedicated and shelter it from weather. Tunnels not required
“Negroid” is bad enough (and it is genuinely shocking, from 2010???) even worse that’s another article using the phrase “1800s” to mean “the nineteenth century”. Not 1800-1810. But who knows. These fucking twats are so stupid they may actually mean the 18th century
Does anyone have any idea?
Its a problem with the English language that there's no really nice way to refer to the decades of '00-'09 and '10-'19 respectively as can easily be done with eg the nineteen eighties.
It doesn't seem that long ago we were debating whether Labour would be able to form a minority government even if the Tories were the largest party.
And so I have come up with an example that I think might clarify your discussions. In 1998, Washington state voters passed Iniitative Initiative 200:
"Initiative 200 was a Washington state initiative to the Legislature promoted by California affirmative-action opponent Ward Connerly, and filed by Scott Smith and Tim Eyman.[1] It sought to prohibit racial and gender preferences by state and local government. It was on the Washington ballot in November 1998 and passed with 58.22% of the vote. It added to Washington's law (but not its constitution) the following language:
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.[2]
Initiative 200 effectively curtailed any form of affirmative action in the state.[3] In April 2019, the Washington Legislature passed Initiative 1000, ending the ban on affirmative action.[4] However, in November 2019, Referendum 88 blocked Initiative 1000 from going into effect."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_200
Correction: The initiative did not end "affirmative action"; it simply meant those who favored it had to be less open about practicing it, less open about giving contracts to their chums, or admissions to the children of their chums.
(There were similar initiatives passed in other places, notably Calfornia, earlier and later. In general, they mirrored state and federal ciivl rights laws, often adopting language from those laws.)
Were you a Washington state voter, would you have voted for, or against, this initiative?
It’s not the loveliest boulevard in london. We wouldn’t be ruining the Mall
Black SPMs got hit the worst.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/07/uks-top-01-earners-have-annual-income-of-over-half-a-million-says-ifs
..the Taxpayers’ Alliance said in a report earlier this week that only 2,921 people employed by local authorities in 2020-21 received more than £100,000 in total remuneration and 739 received over £150,000, 46 more than the previous year.
According to the Institute for Government, just 1,560 of the 456,410 civil servants earned more than £100,000 in 2020...
Does 100K put you in the NU10K - or does it have to be over £150K ?
Either way, that's a fraction of the 300.000 individuals who earn on average £180K.
Its modern young people getting confused as they try and buy settees in Aldi. Twats
Bear in mind that the government now has two surface combatant yards it has to keep on life support no matter what: Govan and Rosyth. Rosyth is going to have to be given something to do after T31 and a split T83/T9x program would solve that, save money and mean less crew will be needed.
It's also notable that zero planning has commenced on any QE replacement. That program took 26 years from initiation to first (sort of) operational deployment. If the RN intends to replace them then they should have already started but the silence is deafening.
Rather like this one, which I use frequently.
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/transport/metro-links-with-dubai-mall
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qVl5NPeJ9p4
The nineteen hundreds has always been the twentieth century.
The nineteen sixties, nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties are quite literally all within the nineteen hundreds.
There's no confusion, unless you have further information to confirm the zero that you are implying, that's how numbers and maths works.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-67924234
I think that's enough.
Even yer average klansman wouid be baulking at that in 2010
I wonder if it is just some ancient text from the 1920s - or the 1300s - which never got amended
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/fujitsu-tax-payer-official-government-contracts-2849729
To what extent are the Tories exposed to Fujitsu?
Pretty much on Malmsy’s header topic
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/fujitsu-post-office-scandal-building-digital-uk/
how many members benefit when Fujitsu wins government contracts? Lobbying! And money! can probably be the only explanation why the Tories didn’t take the PO victims side against Fujitsu, for the last nine long years? 😟
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/fujitsu-s-head-lobbyist-during-post-office-scandal-set-up-tory-mps-pressure-group/ar-AA1mLcKp
Where is Badenoch, do we know? Is she well? 😕
“The 1800s was the decade from 1800 to 1809”. That is the primary and precise meaning. Anything else diminishes the accuracy of the language so only twats use it your way, especially when you have the alternative “19th century”
and raise you a Dictionary.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/eighteen-hundreds-nineteen-hundreds-etc
Second, Japanese Americans were given an advantage in contracting, but not admissions, so they were simultaneously treated as non-white, and white.
(Hillary Clinton benefited from affirmative action while in Arkansas. The federal government reserved some TV and radio licenses for women and minority-owned firms. She joined a group that won such a license. And immediately the group sold the license, at a nice profit, to a real company.)
I enjoyed watching Edward de Bono's Thinking Course Lectures from the early 80s which I stumbled across recently on YouTube. (Picture quality isn't great but I can't find any other versions).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFFZ0XSfCRw
To the Men and Women of London and North Western, and London Midland and Scottish Railways.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=negroid&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
The origin of the word is interesting.
(Wikipedia)
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a scholar at the then modern Göttingen University developed a concept dividing mankind into five races in the revised 1795 edition of his De generis humani varietate nativa (On the Natural Variety of Mankind). Although Blumenbach's concept later gave rise to scientific racism, his arguments were basically anti-racist, since he underlined that mankind as a whole forms one single species, and points out that the transition from one race to another is so gradual that the distinctions between the races presented by him are "very arbitrary". Blumenbach counts the inhabitants of North Africa among the "Caucasian race", grouping the other Africans as "Ethiopian race"...
SKS will prioritise Ukraine and Israel over homelessness.
So no problem there.
But the age distribution of voting intention means that the gap between Conservative and Labour narrows by around 800k due to older voters dying, whilst a 300-400k narrowing can be imagined from first time voters (even without Corbyn mania). That's a 3-4% swing outwith how polling normally represents things.
And at every election, just to stand still, the Tories now need a constant moving walkway of people getting older, grumpier and Tories. But this time your 50 year old Labourite ain't turning into a 55 year old Tory are they? The opposite. Until voting patterns change again, this will hold true.
And we also know Con <-> DNV and Lab <-> DNV will net in Labour's favour, though. The data tables in this instance do reflect vote -> non vote, though not really the opposite.
Sign of an organisation that's lost its moral compass.
https://twitter.com/markesutherland/status/1745799317686796399
As the (far more prescriptive than you) French have been forced to concede.
Is it just that the Knappers' Gazette has an actual style guide ?
Mrs P. has a hankering for eating in Chinatown just once at least. Ta.
"Chicago defers to the preference of its authors in this matter."
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JzA-kpvTqg8
RIP
Surely Mogg is most unhappy.
It was in a perverse way fortuitous that the first witness to appear after the TV series had been screened was Stephen Bradshaw. It was a relatively large audience therefore that was able to witness the kind of pond life the PO engaged as so-called investigators.
Regular viewers will be abe to confirm that the respondents higher up the food chain were not much of an improvement.
FPTs - apologies if posted already, 2 polls out on NH, Trump at +14/+16 so Haley momentum (as such) may have stalled.
But in archaeology it gets worse. The common usage when looking at dating methods these days is BP (Before Present). This is used for things like RC dating and Dendrochronology. 'Present' in those terms means 1950. So you date everythiung back from tha point.
In RC dating there is an additional complication because RC dates have to be calibrated using dendrochonology. So dates are recorded either as BCE/BP for calibrated dates and bce/bp (lower case) for uncalibrated dates.
"We rendez vous at the Red Lion. Eighteen hundred sharp. Mine's a dry sherry if you're first."
http://tinyurl.com/huma38y6
I think it’s a compliment to say that, when I saw who wrote it, I scrolled back up and read the whole thing.
I am with @algarkirk that much data is needed before it can move beyond the realms of lizard-people.
All the same, assuming there is some truth
to the lack of accountability, I do wonder whether this is just a very imperfect antidote to our current tendency to fetishise individual responsibility in our culture.
Sure, Paula Vennells is an inadequate human, but we should not have systems or cultures that allow individual inadequacies to have this big an impact. Ergo, individuals who are held responsible for systemic failures probably aren’t as responsible as we think they are.
This doesn’t mean the opposite is true I.e. that they have much talent. I’d argue few people stand out much either because of their talent or their mendacity. It’s the systems and culture (largely a product of late-stage capitalism) that are more at fault for eg the Horizon mess.
In terms of the numbers, 'late' and 'early' are confusing but not so much the centuries, which mirror the AD ones: twentieth century BC is 2000-1901BC.
Then they might have an incentive to run their organisations well.
Late Stage Capitalism is just like “woke” - a label that has ceased to mean more than an insult
Do we have to tear up the tracks and go fox hunting?
A new Emerson College Polling/WHDH New Hampshire survey finds former President Donald Trump leading the Republican Primary with 44% support, followed by Nikki Haley with 28%. Haley has gained ten points since November, while Trump has lost five. Chris Christie, who suspended his campaign on Wednesday evening, received 12% of voter support. Ron DeSantis holds 7%, and Vivek Ramaswamy holds 4%, while five percent remain undecided.
No dispute that people should pay the running costs. But the former, *at any specific locality*, is a specific externality of the developer building at that site. So it has to be paid for, by someone. There aren't any people living there, now.
So the developer can pay from the cost of building and the profits from selling.
It's a matter of opinion, in one sense, and you don't like paying externalities as a matter of principle. Sure. But public sector finances are getting so tight it's becoming blindingly clear that the above is the only way to go in any realistic sense.
The outcome that people who reach the top of business or politics are, nowadays, rarely if ever punished (in any meaningful way) for messing up on the job, is that those punishment decisions sit with other people who are at the top of politics and business, and know that they are just one mistake away from finding themselves in the same position.
The Post Office case is different, in that lawyers sit in judgement, with the one pitfall that a number of lawyers themselves might be in the firing line.
If you would be good at doing it it is obvious that you would look first to police work, criminal defence work, forensic accounting, and a number of other intrinsically interesting fields.
Has anyone made a 'poshness map' based on supermarkets? Might be quite amusing.
PS I reckon Aldi/Lidl are a bit more classless than ASDA, which is definitely Non-U.
"Let me tell you why nobody wants to talk to you behind closed doors -- because y'all lie."
House Republican wanted Hunter Biden to testify when Democrats offered: ‘I would have raised my hand’
https://thehill.com/homenews/4404449-house-republican-wanted-hunter-biden-testify-when-democrats-offered/
When it comes to the amount of shit emitted
1000 people living in 100 houses = 1000 people living 250 houses = 1000 people living in 500 houses = 1000 people living in 1000 houses.
Overcrowding people so that young adults have to live in their parents homes because they can't afford a home of their own, even if they have jobs and now have kids of their own, does absolutely nothing to deal with either their or YOUR shit.
People should pay for externalities, this however is not an externality.
My mother died as part of the Princess of Wales Hospital neglect saga. Two Filipino nurses were given custodial sentences. The Hospital managers received no sanction. Many remain in post a dozen years later.
Or, just possibly, approaching death the voter thinks, “stuff the environment!”, and switches parties.