Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
A lot can be read into short phrases. Short phrases can be very powerful. Salesmen are trained in this.
The Japanese are also getting interested in the prospects for fusion power.
Japan Inc. races to join U.S., U.K., China in nuclear fusion race https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Japan-Inc.-races-to-join-U.S.-U.K.-China-in-nuclear-fusion-race Japanese companies are racing to create momentum for fusion power, a nascent technology that is rapidly gaining attention in the U.S., the U.K. and China as a potential source of clean energy. The technology is expected to be on the agenda at this week's summit between the leaders of Japan and the U.S.
Twenty-one companies, including Sumitomo Corp., IHI, Furukawa Electric, as well as startups, on March 29 launched the Japan Fusion Energy Council, or J-Fusion, an industry group that will work to speed up technological development in fusion and lobby the government on safety rules and standards.
The members hope to spur funding to avoid falling behind foreign rivals in the race to commercialize fusion power. The group will also engage with the public, where wariness over nuclear technology lingers 13 years after the devastating meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear plant. More than 50 companies have shown interest in joining the group...
Fusion power, of course, bears a fraction of the safety risk of fission, should it ever be successfully implemented. It's not a factor in nuclear proliferation; uncontrollable meltdowns aren't possible; and radioactive waste would be a significantly smaller problem.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Well they were criminals. It was also, though, an armed conflict.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Well they were criminals. It was also, though, an armed conflict.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
A lot can be read into short phrases. Short phrases can be very powerful. Salesmen are trained in this.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
What's interesting is that there's no attempt to conceal the ethnic identity of this person - the concealment (if deliberate) is of his recent arrival. That feels like its being done so as to damoen down immigration as an electoral issue.
Also, the people claiming he is accurately "from" Oldham are the same people that claim student immigration isn't really immigration, because they are due to go home after three years.
Really? Who has said that because I absolutely never have.
It's not true.
A significant proportion of people who arrive on temporary visas end up staying permanently and legally. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I think the figure for student visas is that about 17% end up staying permanently, but the number has been going down.
According to that data 61% left, 35% stayed and 3% is unknown.
The remaining one percent presumably being rounding.
I'd count everyone who stays as staying, though they may indeed subsequently emigrate.
I think it matters how long they stay. 35% stay for a bit. I have a memory of 17% from a different ONS analysis for how many stay permanently. Someone working in the UK for a couple of years after their degree and then leaving seems to me quite different from someone who settles down, become a UK citizen and spends the rest of their life in the country.
I don't think it matters, but then I don't think it matters how many people come or go we just need to invest in appropriate infrastructure for however many people are here and the key is they're still here.
Though according to that data you gave, 77% of the 35% who stay are staying on long term visas. So that equals 27% staying long term.
The remaining 23% of the 35% are staying on a short term visa. So that's 10% staying on short term, of whom they may then renew to another short (or long) term visa or emigrate, we don't know.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
What's interesting is that there's no attempt to conceal the ethnic identity of this person - the concealment (if deliberate) is of his recent arrival. That feels like its being done so as to damoen down immigration as an electoral issue.
Also, the people claiming he is accurately "from" Oldham are the same people that claim student immigration isn't really immigration, because they are due to go home after three years.
Really? Who has said that because I absolutely never have.
It's not true.
A significant proportion of people who arrive on temporary visas end up staying permanently and legally. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I think the figure for student visas is that about 17% end up staying permanently, but the number has been going down.
According to that data 61% left, 35% stayed and 3% is unknown.
The remaining one percent presumably being rounding.
I'd count everyone who stays as staying, though they may indeed subsequently emigrate.
I think it matters how long they stay. 35% stay for a bit. I have a memory of 17% from a different ONS analysis for how many stay permanently. Someone working in the UK for a couple of years after their degree and then leaving seems to me quite different from someone who settles down, become a UK citizen and spends the rest of their life in the country.
We have specifically targeted student expansion from Nigeria, India, Vietnam, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. I would suspect these are more likely to stay permanently than the 2010s cohort which would have been more EU dominant.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Well they were criminals. It was also, though, an armed conflict.
Ask Gerry Adams if they were criminals.
What would be the purpose of that ? UK law is quite clear.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Distance learning?
Why the hell couldn't he distance learn from Bangladesh then? It's clearly complete abuse of the student immigration system. No wonder the left wants student visas excluded from the figures. Scrutiny here is unwelcome!
Courses can be mixed. Some elements need attendance, others not so close. Depends on the time of year and course. Even in the 1980s it was common to do that. Open University, professional training, etc. One can't draw conclusions a priori.
The guy can sod off back to Bangladesh while he does the distance learning bit then, can't he? But of course the media rarely looks into what is going on here. It is a bit like after the Grenfell tragedy, and it turned out an astonishing share of residents were illegal immigrants having their housing paid for by the taxpayer. Of course, that was an inappropriate time to talk about it, but it doesn't get reported the rest of the time. There is a conspiracy of silence on importing as many third worlders as possible by our left wing media.
Distance learning does not mean learning from home.
Many courses, like paramedics as the example, require more time on placement than on campus. Would you want to be treated by a paramedic who has never spent any time in the field or a hospital etc, only in lecture theatres?
You can be on placement in one city while at university in a totally different one. But it's hard to do a placement if not in the country.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Well they were criminals. It was also, though, an armed conflict.
Ask Gerry Adams if they were criminals.
What would be the purpose of that ? UK law is quite clear.
Is that the UK law that stops any further investigations by coroners or prosecutions?
" . . . Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips . . ."
Like RMS Titanic and the Hindenburg. For similar reasons.
However, doubt that Liz Truss will achieve such lasting fame, let alone iconic status.
Instead, 21st-century edition of Kim Campbell, la femme fatale of late 20th-century Canuckian Conservatism.
Truss is going to ensure that her name lives on, because Truss isn't done yet.
We do like a tryer in Britain. We have respect for the determined struggle of an underdog. What might a decade or two of refusing to admit that she was cast into the political wilderness for good reason do to the reputation of Liz Truss?
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Well they were criminals. It was also, though, an armed conflict.
Ask Gerry Adams if they were criminals.
What would be the purpose of that ? UK law is quite clear.
" . . . Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips . . ."
Like RMS Titanic and the Hindenburg. For similar reasons.
However, doubt that Liz Truss will achieve such lasting fame, let alone iconic status.
Instead, 21st-century edition of Kim Campbell, la femme fatale of late 20th-century Canuckian Conservatism.
Truss is going to ensure that her name lives on, because Truss isn't done yet.
We do like a tryer in Britain. We have respect for the determined struggle of an underdog. What might a decade or two of refusing to admit that she was cast into the political wilderness for good reason do to the reputation of Liz Truss?
So forget about the lettuce, this is just the tip of the iceberg?
" . . . Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips . . ."
Like RMS Titanic and the Hindenburg. For similar reasons.
However, doubt that Liz Truss will achieve such lasting fame, let alone iconic status.
Instead, 21st-century edition of Kim Campbell, la femme fatale of late 20th-century Canuckian Conservatism.
Truss is going to ensure that her name lives on, because Truss isn't done yet.
We do like a tryer in Britain. We have respect for the determined struggle of an underdog. What might a decade or two of refusing to admit that she was cast into the political wilderness for good reason do to the reputation of Liz Truss?
So forget about the lettuce, this is just the tip of the iceberg?
Bloody hell, Vennells sent an appalling letter to Alan Bates which has just been read out. I'm something of a dull old centrist, but I'd be willing to bring back hanging for this woman, she's an absolute disgrace.
" . . . Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips . . ."
Like RMS Titanic and the Hindenburg. For similar reasons.
However, doubt that Liz Truss will achieve such lasting fame, let alone iconic status.
Instead, 21st-century edition of Kim Campbell, la femme fatale of late 20th-century Canuckian Conservatism.
Truss is going to ensure that her name lives on, because Truss isn't done yet.
We do like a tryer in Britain. We have respect for the determined struggle of an underdog. What might a decade or two of refusing to admit that she was cast into the political wilderness for good reason do to the reputation of Liz Truss?
So forget about the lettuce, this is just the tip of the iceberg?
" . . . Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips . . ."
Like RMS Titanic and the Hindenburg. For similar reasons.
However, doubt that Liz Truss will achieve such lasting fame, let alone iconic status.
Instead, 21st-century edition of Kim Campbell, la femme fatale of late 20th-century Canuckian Conservatism.
Truss is going to ensure that her name lives on, because Truss isn't done yet.
We do like a tryer in Britain. We have respect for the determined struggle of an underdog. What might a decade or two of refusing to admit that she was cast into the political wilderness for good reason do to the reputation of Liz Truss?
So forget about the lettuce, this is just the tip of the iceberg?
"Netanel Isaac, the director general of the Ministry of Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage, delivered a speech in honour of the heifers’ arrival at Ben Gurion airport in September 2022 and admitted that the ministry has been funding the development of the Mount of Olives area where the ceremony is planned."
...
"In a video from January posted on Boneh Israel’s website, Michael Samuel Smith, a Christian preacher working to bring forth the temple prophecy, said the red heifers they have been raising in Shiloh have come of sacrificial age.
“This is the first time in nearly 2,000 years a successful red heifer has come about,” Smith said in the video. “It is still our opinion the first successful red heifer sacrifice will take place in the spring of 2024 around the Passover to Pentecost timeframe.
“We believe God is going to reveal himself through the efforts of this future event. It is truly a sign of the times, most especially for Jews in Israel.”
Passover will be towards the end of April while Pentecost is in mid-May."
Those who are inclined to believe that this is no more than empty ranting by a tiny scene of religious nutcases should pay attention to the current make-up of the Netanyahu administration and in particular to which political parties have supplied the minister of finance (Bezalel Smotrich, who also has a post in the defence ministry) and the minister of national security (Itamar Ben Gvir). These were the guys who recently threatened to bring down the government. That was in between the withdrawal of many Israeli ground forces from southern Gaza ... and the moment when Netanyahu said hell yeah we're gonna go into Rafah and we got a date too.
Smotrich has said there is no such thing as the Palestinian people and that Palestinians should choose between 1. deportation, 2. subjugation, or 3. being killed. He apologised after he called for Huwara, a town on the West Bank, to be "erased", but the question is why someone like him is a government minister.
" . . . Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips . . ."
Like RMS Titanic and the Hindenburg. For similar reasons.
However, doubt that Liz Truss will achieve such lasting fame, let alone iconic status.
Instead, 21st-century edition of Kim Campbell, la femme fatale of late 20th-century Canuckian Conservatism.
Truss is going to ensure that her name lives on, because Truss isn't done yet.
We do like a tryer in Britain. We have respect for the determined struggle of an underdog. What might a decade or two of refusing to admit that she was cast into the political wilderness for good reason do to the reputation of Liz Truss?
Didn’t do a lot for Edward Heath, and, like him or loathe him, he had more going for him than Liz Truss.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Well they were criminals. It was also, though, an armed conflict.
" . . . Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips . . ."
Like RMS Titanic and the Hindenburg. For similar reasons.
However, doubt that Liz Truss will achieve such lasting fame, let alone iconic status.
Instead, 21st-century edition of Kim Campbell, la femme fatale of late 20th-century Canuckian Conservatism.
Truss is going to ensure that her name lives on, because Truss isn't done yet.
We do like a tryer in Britain. We have respect for the determined struggle of an underdog. What might a decade or two of refusing to admit that she was cast into the political wilderness for good reason do to the reputation of Liz Truss?
Didn’t do a lot for Edward Heath, and, like him or loathe him, he had more going for him than Liz Truss.
Well he entered and left office in consequence of an election for starters.
This was an interesting comment from Alan Bates earlier. I wonder if it will be borne out by further evidence in this section if the enquiry (which is probably correctly billled as "who knew what, and when".
I do think a lot of the ministers, a lot of them come in for the stick in the inquiry, and all the rest of it. I’m sure some of it’s deserved, but I actually hold the department, and I hold the civil service more to blame in a lot of these instances, why things never progressed at the time. Because I’m sure between them and Post Office briefing ministers that were briefing them in the direction they wanted to brief them...
The Japanese are also getting interested in the prospects for fusion power.
Japan Inc. races to join U.S., U.K., China in nuclear fusion race https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Japan-Inc.-races-to-join-U.S.-U.K.-China-in-nuclear-fusion-race Japanese companies are racing to create momentum for fusion power, a nascent technology that is rapidly gaining attention in the U.S., the U.K. and China as a potential source of clean energy. The technology is expected to be on the agenda at this week's summit between the leaders of Japan and the U.S.
Twenty-one companies, including Sumitomo Corp., IHI, Furukawa Electric, as well as startups, on March 29 launched the Japan Fusion Energy Council, or J-Fusion, an industry group that will work to speed up technological development in fusion and lobby the government on safety rules and standards.
The members hope to spur funding to avoid falling behind foreign rivals in the race to commercialize fusion power. The group will also engage with the public, where wariness over nuclear technology lingers 13 years after the devastating meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear plant. More than 50 companies have shown interest in joining the group...
Fusion power, of course, bears a fraction of the safety risk of fission, should it ever be successfully implemented. It's not a factor in nuclear proliferation; uncontrollable meltdowns aren't possible; and radioactive waste would be a significantly smaller problem.
The nuclear proliferation thing isn’t quite true - you have quite a lot of tritium produced and with virtually free neutrons, plutonium would cost about the same as titanium…
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Well they were criminals. It was also, though, an armed conflict.
Ask Gerry Adams if they were criminals.
What would be the purpose of that ? UK law is quite clear.
How sweet.
If you don't understand the distinction between the law of the land, and its unbiased application, then that's your problem.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Well they were criminals. It was also, though, an armed conflict.
Ask Gerry Adams if they were criminals.
What would be the purpose of that ? UK law is quite clear.
Is that the UK law that stops any further investigations by coroners or prosecutions?
Which still leaves the possibility of The Hague for unprosecuted crimes in NI.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Well they were criminals. It was also, though, an armed conflict.
Ask Gerry Adams if they were criminals.
What would be the purpose of that ? UK law is quite clear.
How sweet.
If you don't understand the distinction between the law of the land, and its unbiased application, then that's your problem.
It's very funny.
What laws were passed in (soz for the Godwin) Nazi Germany. I'm sure they were applied in an unbiased way.
" . . . Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips . . ."
Like RMS Titanic and the Hindenburg. For similar reasons.
However, doubt that Liz Truss will achieve such lasting fame, let alone iconic status.
Instead, 21st-century edition of Kim Campbell, la femme fatale of late 20th-century Canuckian Conservatism.
Truss is going to ensure that her name lives on, because Truss isn't done yet.
We do like a tryer in Britain. We have respect for the determined struggle of an underdog. What might a decade or two of refusing to admit that she was cast into the political wilderness for good reason do to the reputation of Liz Truss?
Didn’t do a lot for Edward Heath, and, like him or loathe him, he had more going for him than Liz Truss.
Although he embodied the previous consensus whereas Truss represents a challenge to the consensus, so there has to be more chance that people will come to think that she had a point.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
They did however succeed in kicking the government in the goolies, which was I suspect another big driver of the Leave vote.
Indeed, and at least half the Tory MPs are probably about to get kicked in the goodies again soon. Democracy working as expected, kicking the buggers out being the ultimate form of it.
Earlier today, my fellow octogenarian, Big G from N.Wales, posted that the best thing to have in one's latter years was health, and he's unquestionably right. I wish I could do the things I could do two years ago, let alone 10 or 20! And as for 50 years ago: words fail me! I often agree with Malcolm, but this time I don't. It was easier to get a house 50 years ago; the price my wife and I paid for our first house was about three times my annual salary as a pharmacist; my eldest grandson, There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now.a teacher, and his wife, another teacher, who have bought not such a nice house (not such a nice area anyway) have paid five times their combined annual salaries, and it's not so far from where we used to live. It's also at least twice the price of the house, his sister lives in; in Leeds There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now. And my wife, and I, back in the day managed on my salary; she stayed at home and looked after me and the children. My grandson and his wife both need to work.
Incidentally I was mentally reminiscing about politics back in the day and came to the conclusion that we had a lot, as far as the EU is concerned, to blame General de Gaulle for. If he had not vetoed our entry into the EEC back in the early 60's we'd have been in one the ground floor, rather than playing catch up in the 70's.
One thing though OKC, it was much harder to get a mortgage back then. You had to have saved with them for years and they only gave strict limits re multiples , deposits etc. Price deifferentials are higher but I still think easier to get a house today , outside London and south east at least.
You need a deposit today still. Harder to get a 10% deposit when prices are 8x income than it is to get a 10% deposit when prices are 2x income.
Currently people need to save nearly a year's wages to get a deposit. Which takes many years of savings, decades for some people.
We are not talking minimum wage are we and even at that it would get you >180K house which for most parts of the country would get you a decent house. Even in london where on here they are always saying 50K is poverty wage it gets you almost 500K. wages are more than 10 x what they were then so seems a wash to me
The Japanese are also getting interested in the prospects for fusion power.
Japan Inc. races to join U.S., U.K., China in nuclear fusion race https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Japan-Inc.-races-to-join-U.S.-U.K.-China-in-nuclear-fusion-race Japanese companies are racing to create momentum for fusion power, a nascent technology that is rapidly gaining attention in the U.S., the U.K. and China as a potential source of clean energy. The technology is expected to be on the agenda at this week's summit between the leaders of Japan and the U.S.
Twenty-one companies, including Sumitomo Corp., IHI, Furukawa Electric, as well as startups, on March 29 launched the Japan Fusion Energy Council, or J-Fusion, an industry group that will work to speed up technological development in fusion and lobby the government on safety rules and standards.
The members hope to spur funding to avoid falling behind foreign rivals in the race to commercialize fusion power. The group will also engage with the public, where wariness over nuclear technology lingers 13 years after the devastating meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear plant. More than 50 companies have shown interest in joining the group...
Fusion power, of course, bears a fraction of the safety risk of fission, should it ever be successfully implemented. It's not a factor in nuclear proliferation; uncontrollable meltdowns aren't possible; and radioactive waste would be a significantly smaller problem.
The nuclear proliferation thing isn’t quite true - you have quite a lot of tritium produced and with virtually free neutrons, plutonium would cost about the same as titanium…
Yes, you're right about that; though it would be hard to hide.
..As noted previously, it is technically possible to utilize the significant neutron flux emanating from a fusion reactor core to produce 239Pu from 238U. To accomplish this task covertly, it would be necessary to:
• Move quantities of uranium into the immediate vicinity of the fusion core and • Acquire technology for—and construct—the appropriate reprocessing facilities to separate the plutonium from the uranium and fission products. The first task is likely to be operationally cumbersome. In addition, the transfer of large quantities of uranium into and out of a fusion power plant would likely be detectable, because such conveyance would not be a normal operation for such a plant. The development and construction of a reprocessing facility—assuming that it had not already been built and brought into operation—would also be necessary. The technology is not new, but it requires significant radiation-handling capability. The construction and operation of such a facility would probably be detectable by the current safeguards regime. Overall, the panel judges that the construction and diversion of an IFE plant in this fashion is not the simplest path for a host state to produce SNM. Research reactors and commercial nuclear plants capable of serving the same purpose (irradiation of uranium for plutonium production) exist in many nations. However, a previously built and operating fusion plant could serve as a path of opportunity for a nation interested in developing weapons..... National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Assessment of Inertial Confinement Fusion Targets. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18288
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
A lot can be read into short phrases. Short phrases can be very powerful. Salesmen are trained in this.
Earlier today, my fellow octogenarian, Big G from N.Wales, posted that the best thing to have in one's latter years was health, and he's unquestionably right. I wish I could do the things I could do two years ago, let alone 10 or 20! And as for 50 years ago: words fail me! I often agree with Malcolm, but this time I don't. It was easier to get a house 50 years ago; the price my wife and I paid for our first house was about three times my annual salary as a pharmacist; my eldest grandson, There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now.a teacher, and his wife, another teacher, who have bought not such a nice house (not such a nice area anyway) have paid five times their combined annual salaries, and it's not so far from where we used to live. It's also at least twice the price of the house, his sister lives in; in Leeds There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now. And my wife, and I, back in the day managed on my salary; she stayed at home and looked after me and the children. My grandson and his wife both need to work.
Incidentally I was mentally reminiscing about politics back in the day and came to the conclusion that we had a lot, as far as the EU is concerned, to blame General de Gaulle for. If he had not vetoed our entry into the EEC back in the early 60's we'd have been in one the ground floor, rather than playing catch up in the 70's.
One thing though OKC, it was much harder to get a mortgage back then. You had to have saved with them for years and they only gave strict limits re multiples , deposits etc. Price deifferentials are higher but I still think easier to get a house today , outside London and south east at least.
You need a deposit today still. Harder to get a 10% deposit when prices are 8x income than it is to get a 10% deposit when prices are 2x income.
Currently people need to save nearly a year's wages to get a deposit. Which takes many years of savings, decades for some people.
We are not talking minimum wage are we and even at that it would get you >180K house which for most parts of the country would get you a decent house. Even in london where on here they are always saying 50K is poverty wage it gets you almost 500K. wages are more than 10 x what they were then so seems a wash to me
Mr R rightly makes the point that 10% deposits need saving for, and on a £250k house …..normal, it seems in N Essex for a 2 bed …… that means saving £25,000. That’s not easy.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Everyone is from where they live.
When I go to work, or go to the shops, I go from my home.
I don't go from my birthplace.
I’ve lived in a place for nearly three years, and would never say I’m from there. I don’t think it’s as simple as you’re making out
"Hi, isam. Welcome to the PB face-to-face meeting. Where did you come from today?" Imagine being asked that. How would you answer? Wouldn't you answer based on where you had come from today, i.e. where you now live?
" . . . Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips . . ."
Like RMS Titanic and the Hindenburg. For similar reasons.
However, doubt that Liz Truss will achieve such lasting fame, let alone iconic status.
Instead, 21st-century edition of Kim Campbell, la femme fatale of late 20th-century Canuckian Conservatism.
Truss is going to ensure that her name lives on, because Truss isn't done yet.
We do like a tryer in Britain. We have respect for the determined struggle of an underdog. What might a decade or two of refusing to admit that she was cast into the political wilderness for good reason do to the reputation of Liz Truss?
So forget about the lettuce, this is just the tip of the iceberg?
Earlier today, my fellow octogenarian, Big G from N.Wales, posted that the best thing to have in one's latter years was health, and he's unquestionably right. I wish I could do the things I could do two years ago, let alone 10 or 20! And as for 50 years ago: words fail me! I often agree with Malcolm, but this time I don't. It was easier to get a house 50 years ago; the price my wife and I paid for our first house was about three times my annual salary as a pharmacist; my eldest grandson, There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now.a teacher, and his wife, another teacher, who have bought not such a nice house (not such a nice area anyway) have paid five times their combined annual salaries, and it's not so far from where we used to live. It's also at least twice the price of the house, his sister lives in; in Leeds There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now. And my wife, and I, back in the day managed on my salary; she stayed at home and looked after me and the children. My grandson and his wife both need to work.
Incidentally I was mentally reminiscing about politics back in the day and came to the conclusion that we had a lot, as far as the EU is concerned, to blame General de Gaulle for. If he had not vetoed our entry into the EEC back in the early 60's we'd have been in one the ground floor, rather than playing catch up in the 70's.
One thing though OKC, it was much harder to get a mortgage back then. You had to have saved with them for years and they only gave strict limits re multiples , deposits etc. Price deifferentials are higher but I still think easier to get a house today , outside London and south east at least.
You need a deposit today still. Harder to get a 10% deposit when prices are 8x income than it is to get a 10% deposit when prices are 2x income.
Currently people need to save nearly a year's wages to get a deposit. Which takes many years of savings, decades for some people.
We are not talking minimum wage are we and even at that it would get you >180K house which for most parts of the country would get you a decent house. Even in london where on here they are always saying 50K is poverty wage it gets you almost 500K. wages are more than 10 x what they were then so seems a wash to me
Mr R rightly makes the point that 10% deposits need saving for, and on a £250k house …..normal, it seems in N Essex for a 2 bed …… that means saving £25,000. That’s not easy.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
Which is why the late QE2 chewed out William, when he took his whole family from Windsor to Sandringham in an helicopter he was flying himself! It was said to be the only time in the last decade of her life, that she raised her voice to someone.
Earlier today, my fellow octogenarian, Big G from N.Wales, posted that the best thing to have in one's latter years was health, and he's unquestionably right. I wish I could do the things I could do two years ago, let alone 10 or 20! And as for 50 years ago: words fail me! I often agree with Malcolm, but this time I don't. It was easier to get a house 50 years ago; the price my wife and I paid for our first house was about three times my annual salary as a pharmacist; my eldest grandson, There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now.a teacher, and his wife, another teacher, who have bought not such a nice house (not such a nice area anyway) have paid five times their combined annual salaries, and it's not so far from where we used to live. It's also at least twice the price of the house, his sister lives in; in Leeds There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now. And my wife, and I, back in the day managed on my salary; she stayed at home and looked after me and the children. My grandson and his wife both need to work.
Incidentally I was mentally reminiscing about politics back in the day and came to the conclusion that we had a lot, as far as the EU is concerned, to blame General de Gaulle for. If he had not vetoed our entry into the EEC back in the early 60's we'd have been in one the ground floor, rather than playing catch up in the 70's.
One thing though OKC, it was much harder to get a mortgage back then. You had to have saved with them for years and they only gave strict limits re multiples , deposits etc. Price deifferentials are higher but I still think easier to get a house today , outside London and south east at least.
You need a deposit today still. Harder to get a 10% deposit when prices are 8x income than it is to get a 10% deposit when prices are 2x income.
Currently people need to save nearly a year's wages to get a deposit. Which takes many years of savings, decades for some people.
We are not talking minimum wage are we and even at that it would get you >180K house which for most parts of the country would get you a decent house. Even in london where on here they are always saying 50K is poverty wage it gets you almost 500K. wages are more than 10 x what they were then so seems a wash to me
Mr R rightly makes the point that 10% deposits need saving for, and on a £250k house …..normal, it seems in N Essex for a 2 bed …… that means saving £25,000. That’s not easy.
Comments
Japan Inc. races to join U.S., U.K., China in nuclear fusion race
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Japan-Inc.-races-to-join-U.S.-U.K.-China-in-nuclear-fusion-race
Japanese companies are racing to create momentum for fusion power, a nascent technology that is rapidly gaining attention in the U.S., the U.K. and China as a potential source of clean energy. The technology is expected to be on the agenda at this week's summit between the leaders of Japan and the U.S.
Twenty-one companies, including Sumitomo Corp., IHI, Furukawa Electric, as well as startups, on March 29 launched the Japan Fusion Energy Council, or J-Fusion, an industry group that will work to speed up technological development in fusion and lobby the government on safety rules and standards.
The members hope to spur funding to avoid falling behind foreign rivals in the race to commercialize fusion power. The group will also engage with the public, where wariness over nuclear technology lingers 13 years after the devastating meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear plant. More than 50 companies have shown interest in joining the group...
Fusion power, of course, bears a fraction of the safety risk of fission, should it ever be successfully implemented.
It's not a factor in nuclear proliferation; uncontrollable meltdowns aren't possible; and radioactive waste would be a significantly smaller problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0BVeL_jzKE
UK law is quite clear.
Many courses, like paramedics as the example, require more time on placement than on campus. Would you want to be treated by a paramedic who has never spent any time in the field or a hospital etc, only in lecture theatres?
You can be on placement in one city while at university in a totally different one. But it's hard to do a placement if not in the country.
Like RMS Titanic and the Hindenburg. For similar reasons.
However, doubt that Liz Truss will achieve such lasting fame, let alone iconic status.
Instead, 21st-century edition of Kim Campbell, la femme fatale of late 20th-century Canuckian Conservatism.
We do like a tryer in Britain. We have respect for the determined struggle of an underdog. What might a decade or two of refusing to admit that she was cast into the political wilderness for good reason do to the reputation of Liz Truss?
https://www.jpost.com/judaism/article-796118
(Ramirez is a genius. I have a collection of his, along with collections from Thomas Nast and Matt Pritchett.)
https://youtu.be/UOUeauLWEaE?si=I8p31uh93GwEkJ3a
I do think a lot of the ministers, a lot of them come in for the stick in the inquiry, and all the rest of it. I’m sure some of it’s deserved, but I actually hold the department, and I hold the civil service more to blame in a lot of these instances, why things never progressed at the time. Because I’m sure between them and Post Office briefing ministers that were briefing them in the direction they wanted to brief them...
What laws were passed in (soz for the Godwin) Nazi Germany. I'm sure they were applied in an unbiased way.
NEW THREAD
wages are more than 10 x what they were then so seems a wash to me
..As noted previously, it is technically possible to utilize the significant neutron flux emanating from a fusion reactor core to produce 239Pu from 238U. To accomplish this task covertly, it would be necessary to:
• Move quantities of uranium into the immediate vicinity of the fusion core and
• Acquire technology for—and construct—the appropriate reprocessing facilities to separate the plutonium from the uranium and fission products.
The first task is likely to be operationally cumbersome. In addition, the transfer of large quantities of uranium into and out of a fusion power plant would likely be detectable, because such conveyance would not be a normal operation for such a plant. The development and construction of a reprocessing facility—assuming that it had not already been built and brought into operation—would also be necessary. The technology is not new, but it requires significant radiation-handling capability. The construction and operation of such a facility would probably be detectable by the current safeguards regime.
Overall, the panel judges that the construction and diversion of an IFE plant in this fashion is not the simplest path for a host state to produce SNM. Research reactors and commercial nuclear plants capable of serving the same purpose (irradiation of uranium for plutonium production) exist in many nations. However, a previously built and operating fusion plant could serve as a path of opportunity for a nation interested in developing weapons.....
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Assessment of Inertial Confinement Fusion Targets. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/18288
That’s not easy.