It is remarkable that the Building Safety Regulator is rejecting 70% of applications. For comparison, the planning system rejects around 10% of applications, including on large sites. This is because delays are very costly for developers, so they try extremely hard to be compliant.
A 70% rejection rate suggests that developers *don't know how* to meet the standards the BSR is enforcing, presumably because they are unclear or unmeetable. This is very concerning. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1950564519111016667
This is the ultimate evolution of Process State thinking. People with no domain knowledge or skills create more and more regulations until doing anything legally and correctly becomes impossible.
So the cowboys and scumbags become the only ones who can “get things done”
Guess what happens after that?
It's a new system (2022) for high-rise buildings that came out of Grenfell, as such is probably quite reasonably non-negotiable, and the industry need to adapt.
The answer to safety systems that are not met, is not imo to abolish the safety system at the first instance.
Many of the provisions don’t make sense and aren’t safety related.
As ever, the actual changes required had a raft of bullshit attached. Most of which is about paperwork compliance. Not physical compliance.
Because forklift palettes of paperwork improve building safety far more that some actual fucking inspections.
Inspections require people to go out and actually do real work.
Mind you I had Durham’s building control out yesterday to check some work - £350 for 3 minutes of an inspector saying - that’s fine and can I have a photo when yo do the next bit.
All for a piece of paperwork that no one would ask for unless they know the original layout of a 1950s house
Mind you £350 for someone to come out at less than 24 hours notice isn’t that bad
Are you paying £350 for a 3 minute inspection, or are you paying £350 for years of training that means the inspector only needs 3 minutes?
I’m paying £350 because my wife wants my daughter to have the paperwork if it was ever required.
now I know that the work is so simple that it’s not actually necessary but it’s not my money I’m spending so I’m just rolling with it.
Were this more complex the inspections would be multiple at various points so I know what the costs are but she badly explained what the work was to building control so I’m just rolling with it
But for reference when talking to building control don’t get feet and metres confused
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
My weather map, courtesy of the Met Office, gives rain over South London with a storm moving that way.
“The UK's Science, Innovation & Technology Minister flunked secondary school, had to apply three times to get accepted on an "international development and environmental studies" course at a third rate university, scored a doctorate in "community development", and his work experience before politics consists entirely of youth charities, and talking about youth charities.
Until this precise moment, his life has never intersected with science, innovation or technology. He is the government minister for science, innovation and technology.
He is emblematic of a system - spanning both governing parties - that is stuffed with well-intentioned moralists with absolutely no technical skills or meaningful knowledge.
Which is why one of the most far-reaching and incompetent pieces of legislation in political history resembles a Simpsons "Won't Somebody Think Of The Children!" meme.”
I think it might be. The Stupidest Government Ever. From Skyr Toomakersson to Tiny Tears and from there on down. Utter fuckwits
The post Brexit Tories were pretty dumb, but they still had some intellects. People that might, say, understand how the internet works
I cannot see anyone like that in the Cabinet
It's an almost fair description. Those with degrees in the cabinet range through PPE and law, to history.
The Leader of the House does have a Chemistry degree from Oxford.
Given Lucy Powell regularly appears to be intellectually challenged, questions need to be asked again about slipping standards at Oxford. And was straight out of uni into politics / quangos for her whole life.
Where exactly is the border between Chalk Farm, Camden and Primrose Hill?
I lived within half a mile or so for several years, and never quite found out.
(Not helped by Estate Agents with "Oh yes, it's Primrose Hill".)
Chalk Farm is the tube station, but on the bridge over the railway just to the south was Primrose Hill main line station. It is now the Tann Roka shop, having closed in 1992, then having platforms only on the connection from South Hampstead to Camden Road (nowadays used only during engineering elsewhere on North London Line). But it actually opened as "Hampstead Road" back in 1855, and also had platforms on the WCML tracks into Euston (opened in 1852), and the combined station was renamed Chalk Farm from 1862 to 1950. The WCML platforms closed as early as 1915, however.
Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.
Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.
In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.
If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.
You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.
And, small boat crossings have increased 50% since it was cancellled.
Nice weather.
I doubt your average Afghan boat person has any idea of the Rwanda deterrent, or now, lack thereof.
Before the election Today had regular interviews with charity people in the Calais region and former border officials working with organisations who were very clear that the Rwanda plan was well known by asylum seekers and the threat of it was real to potential boaters.
I know that’s not ideal, something you really don’t like actually working, but the evidence was clearly there and with tweaks such as allowing successful applicants to come to the UK and non successful to stay in Rwanda or confirm and return to their county of origin, it might have worked very well but too many people were blinded to Rwanda because it was the Tories’ plan or frankly, they just don’t want to do anything about the problem.
Rwanda was appalling on so many fronts. It was a Johnsonian stunt which was amoral, Rwanda was not and is not a stable, safe and reliable destination and the project was absurdly expensive. Rwanda was a jolly jape concocted by Johnson and as I mentioned above, serious Tories in Cabinet hated the idea. That is not to say a more workable third party country arrangement is not viable, it is just on any measure, Rwanda wasn't the answer.
Rwanda does however serve a political function, it allows more enthusiastic right wingers to argue we should join Russia and Belarus and jettison the ECHR.
I had no problem with Rwanda.
Neither did Matthew Parris or Ken Clarke.
Always amuses me how parochial some brits are that the only two countries they can point to that are not members of the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. There’s 150 odd others.
How many of them are in Europe?
Lolz you just prove my point. As I said, totally parochial mindset.
It's parochial to ask how many countries that are not signatories to a treaty that only applies in Europe are in Europe?
Why do we need to be a part of a treaty cimply due to our geographical location. Now the EU, it has/had some advantages wrt VAT registration and triangulation being "inside the club"; but we don't need to be part of a supranational court simply because of our geographical location.
Need to hear arguments in favour of it other than the usual soft power/not Russia/rules based order claptrap. All that's long gone.
Leaving the ECHR would cause huge problems with the GFA and the EU UK trade agreement . It would also send out a terrible message given Ukraine . The ECHR does need some reforms but Starmer would be toast if he even suggested the UK might leave . No one can argue with the overall provisions in the ECHR . The problem with say just having domestic legislation to protect rights is that can be changed by a government and not sure the public should really be trusting politicians to do the right thing !
"Leaving" the ECHR really means leaving the Council of Europe and going in the sin bin with Russia. That's probably a plus for the Fukkers. They are too stupid to know what the CoE is but they will certainly enjoy leaving it. #nextbrexit
Where exactly is the border between Chalk Farm, Camden and Primrose Hill?
I lived within half a mile or so for several years, and never quite found out.
(Not helped by Estate Agents with "Oh yes, it's Primrose Hill".)
Chalk Farm is the tube station, but on the bridge over the railway just to the south was Primrose Hill main line station. It is now the Tann Roka shop, having closed in 1992, then having platforms only on the connection from South Hampstead to Camden Road (nowadays used only during engineering elsewhere on North London Line). But it actually opened as "Hampstead Road" back in 1855, and also had platforms on the WCML tracks into Euston (opened in 1852), and the combined station was renamed Chalk Farm from 1862 to 1950. The WCML platforms closed as early as 1915, however.
The border between Camden Town and Kentish Town is conveniently marked on the ground, with a small demilitarized zone.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
We had no choice.
France and Russia would have both been defeated (Russia was as it is, and France came close in 1917) and we'd have faced a totally German dominated Europe. They could have united the fleets of up to 4 navies against us, and would have occupied the low countries and the Channel coast, which would have meant the UK's safety and its links to the Empire would have been utterly at its mercy. The Royal Navy wouldn't have been able to protect our independence.
We want to believe it was avoidable due to the terrible cost. But, whilst a catastrophe, the alternative for this country would have been worse.
We had to fight.
No, I don't really think that holds water. Even with whatever survived of France and Russia's Navies that had not been scuttled or come to us, Germany would not have been a serious naval threat. And where is the solid evidence that the Kaiser would have been more successful in conquering Russia than Napoleon before him?
A Germany that had only recently united itself acting as the overlord of an annoyed Europe would have had far more pressing problems than attacking Britain at sea.
It was just a catastrophical error. We have to accept it, forgive, and move on.
I suppose the evidence is that in 1918 Germany had successfully conquered Russia.
Yes, one only needs to read the Treaty of Brest-Litovskt. For France, look at the annexed territory in Alsace-Lorraine in 1871.
The Royal Navy had about 36 dreadnoughts to 21 German, roughly a 60% advantage, but nothing like an insurmountable one.
That is a bigger advantage than it seems, because not only do you have 60% more guns, but there's also 60% more of you to destroy. So in fact the advantage is not 1.6:1, it's 1.6^2:1 or 2.56:1. That IS close to insurmountable, especially given the generally much larger calibre of the Royal Navy's guns, and once the Royal Navy had addressed the poor quality of its heavy calibre shells and its disastrous ammunition handling practices.
Which is why the Germans, despite the better quality of their ships overall, never seriously contemplated a full fleet action during WW1, and, when they got trapped in one, at Jutland, their only thought was to flee as quickly as possible.
Interestingly there were a few months in late 1914 and early 1915 when the Germans did have rough equality in numbers in Dreadnoughts with the Royal Navy. But that changed once the 15-inch gun Queen Elizabeths and then the Royal Sovereigns started arriving, and once the Americans sent their 6th Battle Squadron.
Also, why would France and Russia have simply signed their fleets over to Germany, rather than to an ally like Britain, or scuttled them?
I would not have chosen for Britain to remain neutral in WW1, I would have had us help our allies with our Navy. My issue lies with our disastrous involvement in the land war.
Firstly, the French (at least) would have scuttled.
The problem wasn’t the ships in existence.
A Germany supreme on the continent would have had the resources to build a One Ocean navy more powerful than the Home Fleet.
The secondary problem is this - Imperial Germany had a war cult. War is Good. War is God. Literally taught in the schools and universities.
It was already metastasising in fuckwit fanaticism - see the incident with the cobbler in Alsace pre WWI.
If Germany won WWI, it would have doubled and redoubled. The Cult of War would rule.
Which made WWII inevitable. Hell, the planned peace terms (occupation of Belgium, a big chunk of France) were about crippling France - for the next war. They were planning it.
So on the new timeline, in about 1928, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Physics in Berlin makes a breakthrough in nuclear physics. Just as the drum beats for war are heating up, again…
Fun, n’est pas?
It's fascinating to look at the attitudes towards war. Italy was a new country, but joined in enthusiastically on the Isonzo. The pretext was of course irredentism - the idea that Italian-speaking Austrians should be Italian - but there was certainly a party that believed that the Italian nation needed to be blooded in a war. War was what nation-states did.
WW1 fuelled the rise of ethno-nationalism, but I am not sure what the alternative would have been, as the war destroyed Austria-Hungary's economy and administrative structures and the Poles certainly would have wanted their own country, although the 2nd Republic was of course multi-ethnic
Contrary to the WarMadContinent thesis, most nations in the run up to WWI didn’t want war. Germany was split between the WarIsGod types and the sensible. France, under the Revanche doctrine was determined to be attacked, not attack. Russia didn’t want it. The UK didn’t want it.
The AH empire wanted war. Maybe Serbia?
Specifically "Apis", Dragutin Dimitrijevic, the head of Serbian military intelligence and leader of the "black hand", a terrorist organisation sponsoring Serbian irredentism which organised the assassination in Sarajevo. He was an extraordinarily violent man, who was directly involved in the brutal murder of of King Alexander I Obrenovic and the return of the Karageorgevic dynasty in 1903.
In the end even his own side were scared of what he might do and he was executed in 1917 at the behest of Nikola Pasic, the Serbian Prime Minister.
Apis is one of those remarkable villains that had an outsize impact on history, The Obrenovici were a generally pro-Austrian dynasty, while the Karageorgevici were considered pro Russian, so the murder of King Alexander made Serbia switch sides, while the Austrian ultimatum after Sarajevo was, under the circumstances remarkably reasonable. Had Pasic given up Apis to the Austrians, when they asked during the July crisis, , then the war might have been avoided. In the end Apis was feared and hated, and he was remarkably unmourned. Given the direct consequences of his actions, he should be better known and more reviled.
Presumably, he's now considered to be a hero in Serbia.
Actually, regarding him as a hero is a bit of a “tell”, in Serbia.
Same way that people who bang on about Churchill being a drunk who fucked up the country is a tell.
Hatred for Churchill (who was obviously flawed), is where the horseshoe effect comes into play, uniting people like David Irving, and Geofffrey Wheatcroft, on one side, and Tariq Ali and Clive Ponting, on the other.
That Churchill was a drunk is hardly controversial, that he seriously fucked up on several occasions and was only restrained on several more by the likes of Alanbrooke is also not contentious.
The one that is the tell is that the fuckup was fighting on in 1940, rather than doing a deal with The Strong Leader in Europe….
India lose the toss for the 15th time in a row. Chance = 1 in 32768.
As are any other of the 32767 sequences.
There's been ~4700 ODIs, 2500 tests, 2000 T20is. The longest sequence you'd expect to see is log(2) 9,700 which is 13.25 - so 15 lost tosses in a row is slightly statistically unusual given there haven't been 32,768 games of international cricket yet. At the current rate of tests, odis and t20is it's a sequence you'd expect to appear by ~2140.
It's a run of losing tosses neither any of us, our children or grandchildren are likely to see by any international cricket captain again in any of our lifetimes.
Some little time ago, I related the story of a hedge fund type out in the sticks.
He’d moved his office next to his home, and was spending lots of time there. Fed up with crime, he hired private security to follow potential offenders and take video and photos of them. He didn’t just specify his home and business - whole village are.
The police reacted by trying to arrest and harass his private security. A uniformed policeman came to tell him the harassment of his private security would go on until he withdrew it. The hedge fundy said that was fine - “since it gets you round the village.”
When I first put that on PB, there were a number of people saying that it was basically evil to bring in private security like that.
Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.
Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.
In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.
If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.
You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.
And, small boat crossings have increased 50% since it was cancellled.
Nice weather.
I doubt your average Afghan boat person has any idea of the Rwanda deterrent, or now, lack thereof.
Before the election Today had regular interviews with charity people in the Calais region and former border officials working with organisations who were very clear that the Rwanda plan was well known by asylum seekers and the threat of it was real to potential boaters.
I know that’s not ideal, something you really don’t like actually working, but the evidence was clearly there and with tweaks such as allowing successful applicants to come to the UK and non successful to stay in Rwanda or confirm and return to their county of origin, it might have worked very well but too many people were blinded to Rwanda because it was the Tories’ plan or frankly, they just don’t want to do anything about the problem.
Rwanda was appalling on so many fronts. It was a Johnsonian stunt which was amoral, Rwanda was not and is not a stable, safe and reliable destination and the project was absurdly expensive. Rwanda was a jolly jape concocted by Johnson and as I mentioned above, serious Tories in Cabinet hated the idea. That is not to say a more workable third party country arrangement is not viable, it is just on any measure, Rwanda wasn't the answer.
Rwanda does however serve a political function, it allows more enthusiastic right wingers to argue we should join Russia and Belarus and jettison the ECHR.
I had no problem with Rwanda.
Neither did Matthew Parris or Ken Clarke.
Ignoring the legalities for a moment (which you can't), the hope in the last Government was, pace Trident, Rwanda would act as a deterrent to those seeking to cross the Channel and enter the country illegally.
It was the biggest stick (well, not quite) the Government had to deter those who were trying to come over and there was some evidence it was acting as such a deterrent.
There was a big cost issue but the current situation has a big cost issue as well. Presumably we'd have assembled a plane load of illegals and then flown them out to Kigali - how many flights a week would we have seen? The idea we'd have flown three or four people on a plane to Kigali was ridiculous but the desperate desire of the last Government to show their plan was "working" led us to that point.
The other side of the issue was whether we would transport those already here from their (allegedly) four star hotel accommodation to something somewhat more rudimentary on the outskirts of Kigali and I'm sure that was under consideration before the Conservatives were swept away in July 2024.
It's not just about flying illegal migrants TO Rwanda - there's the small matter of returning those whose applications were successful (about half perhaps?) and sending the unsuccessful to some other country so in the end it was much more symbolic than serious, more propaganda than practical.
After illegal entry NONE should qualify, they are economic parasites bleeding the country dry due to ineffectual effete woke politician's and liberal do gooders.
I saw a copper on the news last night stating that the folk being housed in one of these hotels had not committed any crime. So entering the country illegally does not constitute a crime?
Not a single one is working illegally on UberEats etc?
To my mind there is a difference between things that are crimes only if certain people do them (working, crossing borders) and things that are crimes whoever does them (theft, murder, rape). Obviously this isn't a useful legal distinction but it is a moral one.
“The UK's Science, Innovation & Technology Minister flunked secondary school, had to apply three times to get accepted on an "international development and environmental studies" course at a third rate university, scored a doctorate in "community development", and his work experience before politics consists entirely of youth charities, and talking about youth charities.
Until this precise moment, his life has never intersected with science, innovation or technology. He is the government minister for science, innovation and technology.
He is emblematic of a system - spanning both governing parties - that is stuffed with well-intentioned moralists with absolutely no technical skills or meaningful knowledge.
Which is why one of the most far-reaching and incompetent pieces of legislation in political history resembles a Simpsons "Won't Somebody Think Of The Children!" meme.”
I think it might be. The Stupidest Government Ever. From Skyr Toomakersson to Tiny Tears and from there on down. Utter fuckwits
The post Brexit Tories were pretty dumb, but they still had some intellects. People that might, say, understand how the internet works
I cannot see anyone like that in the Cabinet
The Tories would have passed the same bill. Many of the worst pieces of legislation by this government were dreamt up in the dying days of the last government.
The Tories are being replaced, but Labour also need to be replaced.
“The UK's Science, Innovation & Technology Minister flunked secondary school, had to apply three times to get accepted on an "international development and environmental studies" course at a third rate university, scored a doctorate in "community development", and his work experience before politics consists entirely of youth charities, and talking about youth charities.
Until this precise moment, his life has never intersected with science, innovation or technology. He is the government minister for science, innovation and technology.
He is emblematic of a system - spanning both governing parties - that is stuffed with well-intentioned moralists with absolutely no technical skills or meaningful knowledge.
Which is why one of the most far-reaching and incompetent pieces of legislation in political history resembles a Simpsons "Won't Somebody Think Of The Children!" meme.”
I think it might be. The Stupidest Government Ever. From Skyr Toomakersson to Tiny Tears and from there on down. Utter fuckwits
The post Brexit Tories were pretty dumb, but they still had some intellects. People that might, say, understand how the internet works
I cannot see anyone like that in the Cabinet
The Tories would have passed the same bill. Many of the worst pieces of legislation by this government were dreamt up in the dying days of the last government.
The Tories are being replaced, but Labour also need to be replaced.
It feels very much like because Labour had done no planning they have pretty much just agreed to continue through most of the Tories worst ideas or brought back to life things that the Tories considered by eventually rejected. Bizarrely the very few half decent ones the Tories had, they binned those despite most of them costing pennies.
Some little time ago, I related the story of a hedge fund type out in the sticks.
He’d moved his office next to his home, and was spending lots of time there. Fed up with crime, he hired private security to follow potential offenders and take video and photos of them. He didn’t just specify his home and business - whole village are.
The police reacted by trying to arrest and harass his private security. A uniformed policeman came to tell him the harassment of his private security would go on until he withdrew it. The hedge fundy said that was fine - “since it gets you round the village.”
When I first put that on PB, there were a number of people saying that it was basically evil to bring in private security like that.
The only response to that is if you (the police) did your job - I wouldn’t need to pay for him.
And add don’t worry - as you can see I have money, would you like me to make this a national story where you look really, really bad
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
It is remarkable that the Building Safety Regulator is rejecting 70% of applications. For comparison, the planning system rejects around 10% of applications, including on large sites. This is because delays are very costly for developers, so they try extremely hard to be compliant.
A 70% rejection rate suggests that developers *don't know how* to meet the standards the BSR is enforcing, presumably because they are unclear or unmeetable. This is very concerning. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1950564519111016667
This is the ultimate evolution of Process State thinking. People with no domain knowledge or skills create more and more regulations until doing anything legally and correctly becomes impossible.
So the cowboys and scumbags become the only ones who can “get things done”
Guess what happens after that?
It's a new system (2022) for high-rise buildings that came out of Grenfell, as such is probably quite reasonably non-negotiable, and the industry need to adapt.
The answer to safety systems that are not met, is not imo to abolish the safety system at the first instance.
Many of the provisions don’t make sense and aren’t safety related.
As ever, the actual changes required had a raft of bullshit attached. Most of which is about paperwork compliance. Not physical compliance.
Because forklift palettes of paperwork improve building safety far more that some actual fucking inspections.
Inspections require people to go out and actually do real work.
Mind you I had Durham’s building control out yesterday to check some work - £350 for 3 minutes of an inspector saying - that’s fine and can I have a photo when yo do the next bit.
All for a piece of paperwork that no one would ask for unless they know the original layout of a 1950s house
Mind you £350 for someone to come out at less than 24 hours notice isn’t that bad
Are you paying £350 for a 3 minute inspection, or are you paying £350 for years of training that means the inspector only needs 3 minutes?
I’m paying £350 because my wife wants my daughter to have the paperwork if it was ever required.
now I know that the work is so simple that it’s not actually necessary but it’s not my money I’m spending so I’m just rolling with it.
Were this more complex the inspections would be multiple at various points so I know what the costs are but she badly explained what the work was to building control so I’m just rolling with it
But for reference when talking to building control don’t get feet and metres confused
Indeed. Did you not explain to her that it's not rocket science?
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Isn't he on numerous occasions allegedly told other players, nobody is here to watch you so we are doing x....
It is remarkable that the Building Safety Regulator is rejecting 70% of applications. For comparison, the planning system rejects around 10% of applications, including on large sites. This is because delays are very costly for developers, so they try extremely hard to be compliant.
A 70% rejection rate suggests that developers *don't know how* to meet the standards the BSR is enforcing, presumably because they are unclear or unmeetable. This is very concerning. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1950564519111016667
This is the ultimate evolution of Process State thinking. People with no domain knowledge or skills create more and more regulations until doing anything legally and correctly becomes impossible.
So the cowboys and scumbags become the only ones who can “get things done”
Guess what happens after that?
It's a new system (2022) for high-rise buildings that came out of Grenfell, as such is probably quite reasonably non-negotiable, and the industry need to adapt.
The answer to safety systems that are not met, is not imo to abolish the safety system at the first instance.
Many of the provisions don’t make sense and aren’t safety related.
As ever, the actual changes required had a raft of bullshit attached. Most of which is about paperwork compliance. Not physical compliance.
Because forklift palettes of paperwork improve building safety far more that some actual fucking inspections.
Inspections require people to go out and actually do real work.
Mind you I had Durham’s building control out yesterday to check some work - £350 for 3 minutes of an inspector saying - that’s fine and can I have a photo when yo do the next bit.
All for a piece of paperwork that no one would ask for unless they know the original layout of a 1950s house
Mind you £350 for someone to come out at less than 24 hours notice isn’t that bad
Are you paying £350 for a 3 minute inspection, or are you paying £350 for years of training that means the inspector only needs 3 minutes?
No, you're paying £350 for someone who's probably done a two week course to get the relevant certificate.
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
Some little time ago, I related the story of a hedge fund type out in the sticks.
He’d moved his office next to his home, and was spending lots of time there. Fed up with crime, he hired private security to follow potential offenders and take video and photos of them. He didn’t just specify his home and business - whole village are.
The police reacted by trying to arrest and harass his private security. A uniformed policeman came to tell him the harassment of his private security would go on until he withdrew it. The hedge fundy said that was fine - “since it gets you round the village.”
When I first put that on PB, there were a number of people saying that it was basically evil to bring in private security like that.
They were probably antisemites objecting to Jewish private police services. Or Islamophobes objecting to Muslim private legal systems (it seems like only yesterday there was a fuss about advertising for sharia law advisers). Or crime historians who know how protection rackets start. Or people in the next village over who lost their police patrols to the rich guy.
US President Donald Trump says it will be "very hard" to make a trade deal with Canada, after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to recognise a Palestinian state. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c2lkp8rlenxt
That's an interesting contrast to the "yes, OK" reply to Mr Starmer.
They managed to get him back in his box when he tried to split Ukraine with Putin.
It is remarkable that the Building Safety Regulator is rejecting 70% of applications. For comparison, the planning system rejects around 10% of applications, including on large sites. This is because delays are very costly for developers, so they try extremely hard to be compliant.
A 70% rejection rate suggests that developers *don't know how* to meet the standards the BSR is enforcing, presumably because they are unclear or unmeetable. This is very concerning. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1950564519111016667
This is the ultimate evolution of Process State thinking. People with no domain knowledge or skills create more and more regulations until doing anything legally and correctly becomes impossible.
So the cowboys and scumbags become the only ones who can “get things done”
Guess what happens after that?
It's a new system (2022) for high-rise buildings that came out of Grenfell, as such is probably quite reasonably non-negotiable, and the industry need to adapt.
The answer to safety systems that are not met, is not imo to abolish the safety system at the first instance.
Many of the provisions don’t make sense and aren’t safety related.
As ever, the actual changes required had a raft of bullshit attached. Most of which is about paperwork compliance. Not physical compliance.
Because forklift palettes of paperwork improve building safety far more that some actual fucking inspections.
Inspections require people to go out and actually do real work.
Mind you I had Durham’s building control out yesterday to check some work - £350 for 3 minutes of an inspector saying - that’s fine and can I have a photo when yo do the next bit.
All for a piece of paperwork that no one would ask for unless they know the original layout of a 1950s house
Mind you £350 for someone to come out at less than 24 hours notice isn’t that bad
Two lots of £350 for two bat surveys done in the same 30 minute visit...
What with Covid and all, I really don't like the little mammals, who cost you even when they're not there.
Some little time ago, I related the story of a hedge fund type out in the sticks.
He’d moved his office next to his home, and was spending lots of time there. Fed up with crime, he hired private security to follow potential offenders and take video and photos of them. He didn’t just specify his home and business - whole village are.
The police reacted by trying to arrest and harass his private security. A uniformed policeman came to tell him the harassment of his private security would go on until he withdrew it. The hedge fundy said that was fine - “since it gets you round the village.”
When I first put that on PB, there were a number of people saying that it was basically evil to bring in private security like that.
They were probably antisemites objecting to Jewish private police services. Or Islamophobes objecting to Muslim private legal systems (it seems like only yesterday there was a fuss about advertising for sharia law advisers). Or crime historians who know how protection rackets start. Or people in the next village over who lost their police patrols to the rich guy.
On the last two points - police regulate private security (ha!) and all the villages had already lost their police patrols.
As to protection rackets - “Me and the lads have an offer. You pay protection money (we’ll call it a tax). We will not provide protection. Careful how you go, now.”
Its a bit like the authorities put our lists of illegal streaming urls that they have blocked or seized. It's like a phone book for the "brand names" to illegal streaming providers.
“The UK's Science, Innovation & Technology Minister flunked secondary school, had to apply three times to get accepted on an "international development and environmental studies" course at a third rate university, scored a doctorate in "community development", and his work experience before politics consists entirely of youth charities, and talking about youth charities.
Until this precise moment, his life has never intersected with science, innovation or technology. He is the government minister for science, innovation and technology.
He is emblematic of a system - spanning both governing parties - that is stuffed with well-intentioned moralists with absolutely no technical skills or meaningful knowledge.
Which is why one of the most far-reaching and incompetent pieces of legislation in political history resembles a Simpsons "Won't Somebody Think Of The Children!" meme.”
I think it might be. The Stupidest Government Ever. From Skyr Toomakersson to Tiny Tears and from there on down. Utter fuckwits
The post Brexit Tories were pretty dumb, but they still had some intellects. People that might, say, understand how the internet works
I cannot see anyone like that in the Cabinet
The Tories would have passed the same bill. Many of the worst pieces of legislation by this government were dreamt up in the dying days of the last government.
The Tories are being replaced, but Labour also need to be replaced.
It feels very much like because Labour had done no planning they have pretty much just agreed to continue through most of the Tories worst ideas or brought back to life things that the Tories considered by eventually rejected. Bizarrely the very few half decent ones the Tories had, they binned those despite most of them costing pennies.
The Chagos Island deal, the online safety bill, the PIP reforms (which should have been about narrowing who receives PIP) instead of cost saving), the disastrous Indian trade deal all started by the Tories and made worse by Labour. Bury them both.
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
No one paid just to see WG bowl. Though he was a fine all rounder in his prime; less so when he was all... round.
Jay from the Inbetweeners complaining about paying for the bins is going viral on social media.
That's quite funny.
He's complaining:
1 - That people who live in apartments won't be subsidising his garden bin. 2 - That Council Tax is costing more money, when it went up by 2.9% which I think is less than inflation.
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
....and 148,000 tourists arrived and 1600 babies were born
.....So don't worry nunu you might not see any of them......
I don't think that's a particularly good point. You're suggesting that only 64% of population increase is due to what demographers call "natural change". Indeed, once you better off against deaths, that proportion is going to look even more stark.
Of course, there will be many more legal immigrants (over 2000 per day on average).
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
One of the Chappell brothers bowled underarm to win an ODI.
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
One of the Chappell brothers bowled underarm to win an ODI.
I once played in a match in a rough part of Stoke where last over of the match the opposition decided to bowl underarm to ensure no sixes. We didn't get to the end of the over as stumps had been ripped out the ground and people were battering one another with them. The umpire even got smacked, I presume for not objecting to the tactics.
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
One of the Chappell brothers bowled underarm to win an ODI.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
We had no choice.
France and Russia would have both been defeated (Russia was as it is, and France came close in 1917) and we'd have faced a totally German dominated Europe. They could have united the fleets of up to 4 navies against us, and would have occupied the low countries and the Channel coast, which would have meant the UK's safety and its links to the Empire would have been utterly at its mercy. The Royal Navy wouldn't have been able to protect our independence.
We want to believe it was avoidable due to the terrible cost. But, whilst a catastrophe, the alternative for this country would have been worse.
We had to fight.
No, I don't really think that holds water. Even with whatever survived of France and Russia's Navies that had not been scuttled or come to us, Germany would not have been a serious naval threat. And where is the solid evidence that the Kaiser would have been more successful in conquering Russia than Napoleon before him?
A Germany that had only recently united itself acting as the overlord of an annoyed Europe would have had far more pressing problems than attacking Britain at sea.
It was just a catastrophical error. We have to accept it, forgive, and move on.
I suppose the evidence is that in 1918 Germany had successfully conquered Russia.
Yes, one only needs to read the Treaty of Brest-Litovskt. For France, look at the annexed territory in Alsace-Lorraine in 1871.
The Royal Navy had about 36 dreadnoughts to 21 German, roughly a 60% advantage, but nothing like an insurmountable one.
That is a bigger advantage than it seems, because not only do you have 60% more guns, but there's also 60% more of you to destroy. So in fact the advantage is not 1.6:1, it's 1.6^2:1 or 2.56:1. That IS close to insurmountable, especially given the generally much larger calibre of the Royal Navy's guns, and once the Royal Navy had addressed the poor quality of its heavy calibre shells and its disastrous ammunition handling practices.
Which is why the Germans, despite the better quality of their ships overall, never seriously contemplated a full fleet action during WW1, and, when they got trapped in one, at Jutland, their only thought was to flee as quickly as possible.
Interestingly there were a few months in late 1914 and early 1915 when the Germans did have rough equality in numbers in Dreadnoughts with the Royal Navy. But that changed once the 15-inch gun Queen Elizabeths and then the Royal Sovereigns started arriving, and once the Americans sent their 6th Battle Squadron.
One detail point - I don't think the "sorted" shells were out until after WW1 (the Greenboy Shells). It's interesting how it is always about excellent people - Admiral Jellicoe fed back the information, but it did not aiui get implemented until he became First Sea Lord and forced it through himself.
And another on Jutland: the RN failed to take advantage of the extra range of their guns. They could have had 15-20 minutes of free fire, but cocked up the range estimates so the Germans opened fire first on the first engagement.
The Royal Navy hadn't really mastered modern battleship handling by WW1. They got complacent during the Victorian era and only had a few years to learn on Dreadnoughts before war broke out.
By WW2, Royal Navy gunnery was actually very good but, by that time, aerial attack had shifted the dial for what drove dominance at sea.
The Royal Navy was so dominant after Waterloo that we didn't fight a naval war until WW1. There had then been several generations of new tech that could only be learned theoretically.
Amazing to think that a ship of the line in 1815 sailed and fought pretty much like one of 1715, whereas by 19 15 we had superdreadnoughts and torpedo-firing submarines
One of the many (few?) benefits of the Industrial Revolution.
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
One of the Chappell brothers bowled underarm to win an ODI.
I once played in a match in a rough part of Stoke where last over of the match the opposition decided to bowl underarm to ensure no sixes. We didn't get to the end of the over as stumps had been ripped out the ground and people were battering one another with them. The umpire even got smacked, I presume for not objecting to the tactics.
Good times....
The scoring system for the league here used to be 10 points for a win and 1 bonus point for every 2 wickets and every 40 runs (up to 200, 45 over games) One incident saw a team (not in the title race) declare on 32-0 to ensure their opposition couldn't score the 12 points they'd need to guarantee promotion Bad blood ensued for about 10 years to follow
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
One of the Chappell brothers bowled underarm to win an ODI.
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
One of the Chappell brothers bowled underarm to win an ODI.
A little interesting data wrinkle from that Find Out Now - 'Others' up to 7% from 4% the previous 4 weeks and at 14% in the *klaxon* 18-29 subsample One swallow does not etc etc, but unprompted dried fruiters perhaps?
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
One of the Chappell brothers bowled underarm to win an ODI.
I once played in a match in a rough part of Stoke where last over of the match the opposition decided to bowl underarm to ensure no sixes. We didn't get to the end of the over as stumps had been ripped out the ground and people were battering one another with them. The umpire even got smacked, I presume for not objecting to the tactics.
Good times....
The scoring system for the league here used to be 10 points for a win and 1 bonus point for every 2 wickets and every 40 runs (up to 200, 45 over games) One incident saw a team (not in the title race) declare on 32-0 to ensure their opposition couldn't score the 12 points they'd need to guarantee promotion Bad blood ensued for about 10 years to follow
Its a bit like the authorities put our lists of illegal streaming urls that they have blocked or seized. It's like a phone book for the "brand names" to illegal streaming providers.
Got to say I’m at a loss as to how Ofcom are going to police the impossible to police.
Edit - especially as small ISP’s do not have to block things (went off to check and my ISP still allows me to access Pirate Bay)
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
One of the Chappell brothers bowled underarm to win an ODI.
I once played in a match in a rough part of Stoke where last over of the match the opposition decided to bowl underarm to ensure no sixes. We didn't get to the end of the over as stumps had been ripped out the ground and people were battering one another with them. The umpire even got smacked, I presume for not objecting to the tactics.
Good times....
The scoring system for the league here used to be 10 points for a win and 1 bonus point for every 2 wickets and every 40 runs (up to 200, 45 over games) One incident saw a team (not in the title race) declare on 32-0 to ensure their opposition couldn't score the 12 points they'd need to guarantee promotion Bad blood ensued for about 10 years to follow
Wars have been declared for lesser slights
Legend suggests the skipper of the offended team was asking for it. I couldn't possibly comment
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
My Great Great Uncle captained England (or the MCC as they used to tour as) on that tour of South Africa. At least, he did for the first three tests…
A little interesting data wrinkle from that Find Out Now - 'Others' up to 7% from 4% the previous 4 weeks and at 14% in the *klaxon* 18-29 subsample One swallow does not etc etc, but unprompted dried fruiters perhaps?
Possibly, though (insert huge caveats about single polls being bad and poll-to-poll comparisons being worse here) it's Reform down not Labour.
I suppose it's possible that we've misdiagnosed who is hurt most if The Party With No Name takes off. It coud be Reform, who currently have the entire "tear it all down, who cares what happens next" market to themselves. (See the phenomenon of Lib Dem-UKIP swingers.)
Stand-in England captain Ollie Pope, speaking to Sky Sports: "We're going to have a bowl first. There's a bit more grass in it this week, overcast conditions, it's a no brainer to bowl first."
6hrs time...India 350 for 2....
given the earther today, more like no play due to rain
When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat.
WG Grace.
Graceball was all about WG, though. And he was first and foremost a batsman.
Strangely, not true. He is best remembered as a batsman but statistically he was more successful as a bowler.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
No, it's true.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
He took five wickets in an innings twice as often as he scored a century, and in his last first class match he scored 0 and 1 but still took 3/123.
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
England took an underarm bowler to South Africa in 1909 is todays random cricket fact. And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
My Great Great Uncle captained England (or the MCC as they used to tour as) on that tour of South Africa. At least, he did for the first three tests…
....and 148,000 tourists arrived and 1600 babies were born
.....So don't worry nunu you might not see any of them......
I don't think that's a particularly good point. You're suggesting that only 64% of population increase is due to what demographers call "natural change". Indeed, once you better off against deaths, that proportion is going to look even more stark.
Of course, there will be many more legal immigrants (over 2000 per day on average).
I agree it was not a good point. I've just met a lot of interesting people who have drawn bad cards. Many times more interesting than those on here who send their time whining about rubber boats.
.....I just read a post further down about Peter Kyle being useless because he left school without going to university. He had dyslexia which wasn't mentioned. Half the creatives in the advertising industry have dyslexia. The arrogance and entitlement of some of the posters here makes me cringe
A little interesting data wrinkle from that Find Out Now - 'Others' up to 7% from 4% the previous 4 weeks and at 14% in the *klaxon* 18-29 subsample One swallow does not etc etc, but unprompted dried fruiters perhaps?
Possibly, though (insert huge caveats about single polls being bad and poll-to-poll comparisons being worse here) it's Reform down not Labour.
I suppose it's possible that we've misdiagnosed who is hurt most if The Party With No Name takes off. It coud be Reform, who currently have the entire "tear it all down, who cares what happens next" market to themselves. (See the phenomenon of Lib Dem-UKIP swingers.)
Its also start of the summer holidays. We often see outliers / temporary big changes, just because people are wanting to do anything but answer polling.
I was curious about Soviet use of anthrax as a bio weapon, after reading about the poisoning of a White Russian general in 1928 (by his butler's brother).
I didn't realise how far back it went.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10134958/ ..The Soviet Union’s biowarfare program was mostly based on the preexisting Tsarist-Russian bacteriological program, which started in 1885 with the establishment of the first Russian bacteriological station. The Soviet Union officially initiated its biological warfare program in 1928, but evidence seems to conclude that the program had unofficially started some years earlier. British SIS intelligence reports from 1924 confirmed the use of anthrax shells (with a capacity of 2 liters/shell), bombs, and mortars against pigs, with ''favorable'' results. Contrary to plague, anthrax would last in the environment for 1-2 hours, forming spores immediately, granting the bacillus sufficient resilience to infect a vast number of people [12]. In 1925, the Red Army's Military-Chemical Directorate (Военно-химическое управление-VOKhIMU) was formed and directed by the chemist Yakov Moisseevich Fishman (1887-1962), who would later become a recognized architect of the Soviet biological warfare program in its infancy. In 1926, a bacteriological laboratory controlled by the VOKhIMU in Moscow was established, focusing on anthrax production..
In Durham we’ve been paying for around a decade for them to take our garden waste. £35 a year IiRC.
What can you do ? Needs taking. Fuckers rinse you for every penny they can get. I’m a pensioner too !
We pay for a garden waste bin in Lewsham too, I think it's fair, lots of people haven't got gardens and the people who do are mostly well off. If anyone really objects they can burn their garden waste instead.
....and 148,000 tourists arrived and 1600 babies were born
.....So don't worry nunu you might not see any of them......
I don't think that's a particularly good point. You're suggesting that only 64% of population increase is due to what demographers call "natural change". Indeed, once you better off against deaths, that proportion is going to look even more stark.
Of course, there will be many more legal immigrants (over 2000 per day on average).
I agree it was not a good point. I've just met a lot of interesting people who have drawn bad cards. Many times more interesting than those on here who send their time whining about rubber boats.
.....I just read a post further down about Peter Kyle being useless because he left school without going to university. He had dyslexia which wasn't mentioned. Half the creatives in the advertising industry have dyslexia. The arrogance and entitlement of some of the posters here makes me cringe
"The arrogance and entitlement of some of the posters here makes me cringe"
In Durham we’ve been paying for around a decade for them to take our garden waste. £35 a year IiRC.
What can you do ? Needs taking. Fuckers rinse you for every penny they can get. I’m a pensioner too !
Who should pay then?
There's a coherent position of "we all pay in for everything, accepting that we win some and lose some, and hope it comes out in the wash over a lifetime". It's not even necessarily a left-wing thing, it's the sort of thing that the old, slightly patrician One Nation Wet Tories used to say.
It's a coherent position, but it's not where the country is at the moment, and it's the sort of thinking that leads to the TV licence.
In Durham we’ve been paying for around a decade for them to take our garden waste. £35 a year IiRC.
What can you do ? Needs taking. Fuckers rinse you for every penny they can get. I’m a pensioner too !
Who should pay then?
There's a coherent position of "we all pay in for everything, accepting that we win some and lose some, and hope it comes out in the wash over a lifetime". It's not even necessarily a left-wing thing, it's the sort of thing that the old, slightly patrician One Nation Wet Tories used to say.
It's a coherent position, but it's not where the country is at the moment, and it's the sort of thinking that leads to the TV licence.
We should expand the waste fee to recycling and general waste, and abolish local councils altogether.
I wouldn't care about paying £35 for each, or even more for more regular collections, if I didn't have to pay Council Tax.
....and 148,000 tourists arrived and 1600 babies were born
.....So don't worry nunu you might not see any of them......
I don't think that's a particularly good point. You're suggesting that only 64% of population increase is due to what demographers call "natural change". Indeed, once you better off against deaths, that proportion is going to look even more stark.
Of course, there will be many more legal immigrants (over 2000 per day on average).
.....I just read a post further down about Peter Kyle being useless because he left school without going to university. He had dyslexia which wasn't mentioned. Half the creatives in the advertising industry have dyslexia. The arrogance and entitlement of some of the posters here makes me cringe
The post wasn't about his being useless per se, but rather his qualifications/suitability as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.
....and 148,000 tourists arrived and 1600 babies were born
.....So don't worry nunu you might not see any of them......
I don't think that's a particularly good point. You're suggesting that only 64% of population increase is due to what demographers call "natural change". Indeed, once you better off against deaths, that proportion is going to look even more stark.
Of course, there will be many more legal immigrants (over 2000 per day on average).
.....I just read a post further down about Peter Kyle being useless because he left school without going to university. He had dyslexia which wasn't mentioned. Half the creatives in the advertising industry have dyslexia. The arrogance and entitlement of some of the posters here makes me cringe
The post wasn't about his being useless per se, but rather his qualifications/suitability as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.
In Durham we’ve been paying for around a decade for them to take our garden waste. £35 a year IiRC.
What can you do ? Needs taking. Fuckers rinse you for every penny they can get. I’m a pensioner too !
We pay for a garden waste bin in Lewsham too, I think it's fair, lots of people haven't got gardens and the people who do are mostly well off. If anyone really objects they can burn their garden waste instead.
We also get chinged for a Garden Tax in Bradford. Avoidable with multiple trips to the tip, but we choose to have two brown bins.
In Durham we’ve been paying for around a decade for them to take our garden waste. £35 a year IiRC.
What can you do ? Needs taking. Fuckers rinse you for every penny they can get. I’m a pensioner too !
How about composting. We compost everything. Admittedly I have the space and a large compost area, but then I have a huge garden creating a lot of compost. If you have a small garden one bin should be enough. Our holiday home bin is only 1/3rd full. If you are hedge cutting it might be a challenge, but if you chop it small enough you should be able to get it in over a few weeks. It drops in volume quickly. If it is lawn cuttings get a mower with a mulcher (if a small lawn you probably don't need it). No waste and no need to fertilize the lawn.
I am always surprised by the number of garden waste bins around. Am I missing something?
Comments
now I know that the work is so simple that it’s not actually necessary but it’s not my money I’m spending so I’m just rolling with it.
Were this more complex the inspections would be multiple at various points so I know what the costs are but she badly explained what the work was to building control so I’m just rolling with it
But for reference when talking to building control don’t get feet and metres confused
Locals feel abandoned by the state
Fred Sculthorp"
https://unherd.com/2025/07/will-the-revolution-begin-in-bedford
https://news.sky.com/story/canada-says-it-will-recognise-a-palestinian-state-if-certain-conditions-are-met-13404317
It's a run of losing tosses neither any of us, our children or grandchildren are likely to see by any international cricket captain again in any of our lifetimes.
This is an invasion.
He’d moved his office next to his home, and was spending lots of time there. Fed up with crime, he hired private security to follow potential offenders and take video and photos of them. He didn’t just specify his home and business - whole village are.
The police reacted by trying to arrest and harass his private security. A uniformed policeman came to tell him the harassment of his private security would go on until he withdrew it. The hedge fundy said that was fine - “since it gets you round the village.”
When I first put that on PB, there were a number of people saying that it was basically evil to bring in private security like that.
"Air traffic chaos ‘caused by software error’"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/30/air-traffic-control-failure-airport-disruption-cancellation
The Tories are being replaced, but Labour also need to be replaced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x5clEqnHi4
BBC Russia editor Steve Rosenberg's daily press summary (4 minutes).
Pope's first successful review for ages, apparently.
And add don’t worry - as you can see I have money, would you like me to make this a national story where you look really, really bad
And he was first and foremost a batsman.
That's probably partly because he played in the days when pitches were so poor that any player who scored runs with his volume was quite unusual while taking wickets was less difficult.
Ian Chappell had a slight variation. 'Nine times out of ten you win the toss and bat. The tenth time you think about it - then bat.'
US President Donald Trump says it will be "very hard" to make a trade deal with Canada, after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to recognise a Palestinian state.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c2lkp8rlenxt
That's an interesting contrast to the "yes, OK" reply to Mr Starmer.
They managed to get him back in his box when he tried to split Ukraine with Putin.
Is the next one of these?
What with Covid and all, I really don't like the little mammals, who cost you even when they're not there.
@christiancalgie
Ofcom has launched investigations into numerous porn sites for not complying with the new age verification requirements
The phrase 'Streisand effect' comes to mind
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1950853214611345745
As to protection rackets - “Me and the lads have an offer. You pay protection money (we’ll call it a tax). We will not provide protection. Careful how you go, now.”
It’s “nature abhors a vacuum”
Makes them sound more like a lot of tossers.
..The statistics of his career are alone enough to explain why - more than 54,000 first-class runs (there are at least two different versions of the precise figure, so let's leave it at that) spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece. I suppose we might wonder why his bowling average wasn't even more impressive, given the ropey pitches on which Dr Grace played. No modern cricketer would deign to turn out on them, which makes his batting all the more wondrous, and comparisons with Bradman or anyone since quite pointless...
No one paid just to see WG bowl.
Though he was a fine all rounder in his prime; less so when he was all... round.
.....So don't worry nunu you might not see any of them......
He's complaining:
1 - That people who live in apartments won't be subsidising his garden bin.
2 - That Council Tax is costing more money, when it went up by 2.9% which I think is less than inflation.
Is he after a job at the Spectator?
I stand by my statement.
An alternative argument might be that others had comparable bowling records, but few others could match his run making until Trump and Jessop emerged at the end of his career. However, we should also remember that as a bowler, bowling overarm with distinction, he was also something of a pioneer. Until his time, roundarm was more common (and underarm had been required until 1864)
Shubman Gill, porn users or OFCOM?
I wonder if Nasser Hussain will too?
And Mike Brearley tried underarm bowling
Of course, there will be many more legal immigrants (over 2000 per day on average).
Richie Benaud pulled no punches at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EAA0DX0qms
A city traffic engineer credits the success to lower speed limits and smarter design."
https://yle.fi/a/74-20174831
Good times....
Today, those who aren't working are down the beach; sunny 28-29C again
Find Out Now voting intention:
🟦 Reform UK: 30% (-4)
🔴 Labour: 20% (-)
🔵 Conservatives: 17% (+1)
🟠 Lib Dems: 13% (-1)
🟢 Greens: 9% (-1) (incorrectly reported in the tweet)
Changes from 23rd July
[Find Out Now, 30th July, N=2,654]
One incident saw a team (not in the title race) declare on 32-0 to ensure their opposition couldn't score the 12 points they'd need to guarantee promotion
Bad blood ensued for about 10 years to follow
“Troops fired warning shots and weren’t aware of any casualties “.
They were too busy collecting their bonuses for reducing the Gazan population to notice the dead bodies .
One swallow does not etc etc, but unprompted dried fruiters perhaps?
What can you do ? Needs taking. Fuckers rinse you for every penny they can get. I’m a pensioner too !
Edit - especially as small ISP’s do not have to block things (went off to check and my ISP still allows me to access Pirate Bay)
And, a diminishing Green vote, for Labour to squeeze.
I expect you're right, and that some of the vote for Others, is the Sultanas. Their best bet is probably an electoral pact with the Green Party.
By the IDF
Again.
I suppose it's possible that we've misdiagnosed who is hurt most if The Party With No Name takes off. It coud be Reform, who currently have the entire "tear it all down, who cares what happens next" market to themselves. (See the phenomenon of Lib Dem-UKIP swingers.)
.....I just read a post further down about Peter Kyle being useless because he left school without going to university. He had dyslexia which wasn't mentioned. Half the creatives in the advertising industry have dyslexia. The arrogance and entitlement of some of the posters here makes me cringe
I didn't realise how far back it went.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10134958/
..The Soviet Union’s biowarfare program was mostly based on the preexisting Tsarist-Russian bacteriological program, which started in 1885 with the establishment of the first Russian bacteriological station. The Soviet Union officially initiated its biological warfare program in 1928, but evidence seems to conclude that the program had unofficially started some years earlier.
British SIS intelligence reports from 1924 confirmed the use of anthrax shells (with a capacity of 2 liters/shell), bombs, and mortars against pigs, with ''favorable'' results. Contrary to plague, anthrax would last in the environment for 1-2 hours, forming spores immediately, granting the bacillus sufficient resilience to infect a vast number of people [12].
In 1925, the Red Army's Military-Chemical Directorate (Военно-химическое управление-VOKhIMU) was formed and directed by the chemist Yakov Moisseevich Fishman (1887-1962), who would later become a recognized architect of the Soviet biological warfare program in its infancy.
In 1926, a bacteriological laboratory controlled by the VOKhIMU in Moscow was established, focusing on anthrax production..
HAHAHAHAHA
hahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
burp
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
There's a coherent position of "we all pay in for everything, accepting that we win some and lose some, and hope it comes out in the wash over a lifetime". It's not even necessarily a left-wing thing, it's the sort of thing that the old, slightly patrician One Nation Wet Tories used to say.
It's a coherent position, but it's not where the country is at the moment, and it's the sort of thinking that leads to the TV licence.
I wouldn't care about paying £35 for each, or even more for more regular collections, if I didn't have to pay Council Tax.
I'm sure he is an admirable self starter in some respects, but it's hard to make a case for him in this particular one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kyle
The manner in which politics has become almost the sole preserve of those who have done little else is a legitimate cause for concern.
And the current cabinet is even more of a monoculture than its predecessors.
(Though to be fair, Kyle's predecessor was similarly unqualified.)
https://x.com/CMid97/status/1950617937330528322
We are becoming a police state. Now have to show to show ID to order food.
I am always surprised by the number of garden waste bins around. Am I missing something?