Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.
Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.
But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.
FFS.
If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…
OK, take 6 months.
Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.
But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.
Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.
The documents case appeared to be the most straightforward, and would have moved relatively quickly but for the judge in that case seemingly slow walking every single step (she ended up dismissing it, but whether the appeals courts could have agreed we'll never know).
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
If you'd actually dealt with them, the level of FuckYouIveGotMine involved can be staggering.
I do all the time - LTNs and cycle infrastructure are opposed vigorously by exactly the kind of individual you describe. Some of that is pure "I'm alright jack" - but compensating a local business during construction works is sensible imo.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Most of the active anti renewables protests in North Yorkshire are about the repurposing of good farmland for solar panels. The Yorkshire Green pylon upgrade and extension project seemed to barely raised a murmur.
Seems to be the same in Durham
I noticed a new solar farm being built along the A1M in our county on our drive down to visit family at the weekend.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.
Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.
But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.
FFS.
If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…
OK, take 6 months.
Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.
But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.
Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.
The documents case appeared to be the most straightforward, and would have moved relatively quickly but for the judge in that case seemingly slow walking every single step (she ended up dismissing it, but whether the appeals courts could have agreed we'll never know).
Trump was very lucky to get such a corrupt judge in that case in Florida, but he’s also benefitted from a Supreme Court on his side. All cases against Trump faced tough headwinds because of that.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
Well I am very happy living densely - but I would happily bring in the death penalty for graffiti. I'll pull the lever myself. Density is only pleasant if the environment is pleasant - graffiti makes everyone's life worse.
And the sign said "The words of the prophets are Written on the subway walls, tenement halls And whispered in the sound of silence"
Funny you quote that when I saw this on the Twitter today.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
Well I am very happy living densely - but I would happily bring in the death penalty for graffiti. I'll pull the lever myself. Density is only pleasant if the environment is pleasant - graffiti makes everyone's life worse.
And the sign said "The words of the prophets are Written on the subway walls, tenement halls And whispered in the sound of silence"
Funny you quote that when I saw this on the Twitter today.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.
Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.
But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.
FFS.
If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…
OK, take 6 months.
Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.
But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.
Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.
2 weeks ago I did a HC trial where all the evidence, including that of the accused, was heard in a day. It can be done. I agree, the kitchen sink approach to prosecution is very rarely the best.
Interesting.
If you can’t prosecute treason in 4 years, then you have Italian levels of TheLawMeansThereIsNoLaw
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.
Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.
But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.
FFS.
If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…
OK, take 6 months.
Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.
But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.
Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.
The documents case appeared to be the most straightforward, and would have moved relatively quickly but for the judge in that case seemingly slow walking every single step (she ended up dismissing it, but whether the appeals courts could have agreed we'll never know).
Trump was very lucky to get such a corrupt judge in that case in Florida, but he’s also benefitted from a Supreme Court on his side. All cases against Trump faced tough headwinds because of that.
Sydney police arrest five jihadis going to the vigil for the victims of the Bondi massacre. This is the new reality for western society, the vipers are in the nest.
The Munich massacre was in 1972. How exactly is this a “new reality”?
There might even have been intercommunal conflicts before then...
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.
Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.
But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.
FFS.
If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…
OK, take 6 months.
Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.
But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.
Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.
The documents case appeared to be the most straightforward, and would have moved relatively quickly but for the judge in that case seemingly slow walking every single step (she ended up dismissing it, but whether the appeals courts could have agreed we'll never know).
Trump was very lucky to get such a corrupt judge in that case in Florida, but he’s also benefitted from a Supreme Court on his side. All cases against Trump faced tough headwinds because of that.
Cannon, a Trump appointee and devotee.
Many Trump appointed judges have still ruled against him. But she was beyond servile. He finally found one who believed in personal loyalty the way he expects.
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Why is it the state imposing its will on individuals in an authoritarian way when it agrees to permit building a block of flats on the land next to somebody's house which they don't own, but it is not the state imposing its will in an authoritarian way when it refuses to permit somebody to build a block of flats on land they do own?
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
Well I am very happy living densely - but I would happily bring in the death penalty for graffiti. I'll pull the lever myself. Density is only pleasant if the environment is pleasant - graffiti makes everyone's life worse.
And the sign said "The words of the prophets are Written on the subway walls, tenement halls And whispered in the sound of silence"
Funny you quote that when I saw this on the Twitter today.
OT my slightly damp new passport has arrived. It's very small. It turned up just moments after the text from Royal Mail saying it would not be delivered today.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Why is it the state imposing its will on individuals in an authoritarian way when it agrees to permit building a block of flats on the land next to somebody's house which they don't own, but it is not the state imposing its will in an authoritarian way when it refuses to permit somebody to build a block of flats on land they do own?
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
I don't mind if the state imposes it's will sometimes - that's one of the necessities of governing 70 million people. I'm just pointing out that NIMBYism is often a perfectly rational response. It's not evil or something.
(There are some good counter examples on here though. Sometimes it is just people being twats)
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
Why was it even something they were tweeting about?
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
Why was it even something they were tweeting about?
You want them not to mention Xmas? TRUMP WAS RIGHT!!!
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Why is it the state imposing its will on individuals in an authoritarian way when it agrees to permit building a block of flats on the land next to somebody's house which they don't own, but it is not the state imposing its will in an authoritarian way when it refuses to permit somebody to build a block of flats on land they do own?
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
I don't mind if the state imposes it's will sometimes - that's one of the necessities of governing 70 million people. I'm just pointing out that NIMBYism is often a perfectly rational response. It's not evil or something.
(There are some good counter examples on here though. Sometimes it is just people being twats)
It may not be evil, sure, but it being rational doesn't make for much of a defence when considering wider negatives for society, in my view.
But that leaves an insanely large fraction of the country where there isn't really anyone. The Conservatives haven't decided whether they want to be absorbed by Reform or mark out a distinctive line on the right. And Labour are too unpopular.
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
TBF, it's more of a Judea Heritage issue.
Is that the People’s Judean Heritage organisation? Or the Popular Front For Judean Heritage? Or the People’s Popular Front for Judean Heritage?
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
Sol Invictus was I believe a cult propagated by late-Empire pagans to counter Christianity.
Mithras's birthday was also 25 December, and I am not sure who decided the Incarnation happened on 25 March. The fact that Christmas llis 6bmonths after Midsummer probably has more to do with it, as a popular midwinter festival
Just in case anyone thinks we're the only ones with politico-cultural arguments over 2000 year old history.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/opinion/20251218/the-hwandan-gogi-controversy Recently, at a press conference on Dec. 12, President Lee Jae Myung created a controversy by simply asking a question. He asked if the "Hwandan Gogi" should be considered as part of the research and discussions on Korean history. Sounds like an innocent question, but the response was overwhelming in condemnation of the president for even suggesting that the "Hwandan Gogi" be considered as a authentic historical document.
The "Hwandan Gogi" is a document allegedly compiled in 1911 by a man named Gye Yeon-su but not published until 1979 by Yi Yu-rip. It contains four separate “gogi” — old records. (As an aside, for those of you who speak a little Korean, the word “gogi” is not your familiar food from the barbecue restaurant. There are Chinese characters for this and they mean “old” “record.”)
There is scholarly unanimity about the record as a forgery and that it cannot be taken seriously. However, as soon as I say that, I can hear the chorus of objections ..
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
Why was it even something they were tweeting about?
I guess it is their job to drum up interest. Jesus did, after all, visit England, as noted in Jerusalem. Further, one of the experts quoted wrote the book, God is an Englishman; Boris is a fan.
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
Sol Invictus was I believe a cult propagated by late-Empire pagans to counter Christianity.
Mithras's birthday was also 25 December, and I am not sure who decided the Incarnation happened on 25 March. The fact that Christmas llis 6bmonths after Midsummer probably has more to do with it, as a popular midwinter festival
Shepherds were watching their sheep by night. They are taken in in the winter.
But that leaves an insanely large fraction of the country where there isn't really anyone. The Conservatives haven't decided whether they want to be absorbed by Reform or mark out a distinctive line on the right. And Labour are too unpopular.
I suspect the Conservatives have decided which side their bread is buttered already.
Labour are uniquely unpopular but Find out now's methodology seems to work to the narrative people like Goodwin would like to pitch. They may of course be correct and all the rest wrong.
Some good news for a change; the Thai vs Cambodia ‘war’ seems to have cooled significantly. Our Thai co-in-laws …… our son’s in-laws ….. have been told they can leave his home, to which they’d been evacuated., and go back to their border-area farm. They’re going tomorrow, which leaves son etc to come to ours for Christmas.
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
Why was it even something they were tweeting about?
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Why is it the state imposing its will on individuals in an authoritarian way when it agrees to permit building a block of flats on the land next to somebody's house which they don't own, but it is not the state imposing its will in an authoritarian way when it refuses to permit somebody to build a block of flats on land they do own?
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
I don't mind if the state imposes it's will sometimes - that's one of the necessities of governing 70 million people. I'm just pointing out that NIMBYism is often a perfectly rational response. It's not evil or something.
(There are some good counter examples on here though. Sometimes it is just people being twats)
It may not be evil, sure, but it being rational doesn't make for much of a defence when considering wider negatives for society, in my view.
I agree - though everyone's tolerance will be different, and it's often based on your personal views - I'm dead keen on cycle infrastructure replacing on-street parking. One person's YIMBY is someone else's NIMBY.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
Indeed.
Until we change the rules to tell curtain twitching busybodies to mind their own f***ing business and that its nothing to do with them what their neighbours do, we will never solve this issue.
Isn't the problem the number of males ion particular who like to twitch their curtains at any female in sight - and the smaller but not negligible group which is keener on the young?
If I'd bought a house without that sort of facility for leering neighbours, I wouldn't be pleased if it wer subsquently provided by later construction.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Why is it the state imposing its will on individuals in an authoritarian way when it agrees to permit building a block of flats on the land next to somebody's house which they don't own, but it is not the state imposing its will in an authoritarian way when it refuses to permit somebody to build a block of flats on land they do own?
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
I don't mind if the state imposes it's will sometimes - that's one of the necessities of governing 70 million people. I'm just pointing out that NIMBYism is often a perfectly rational response. It's not evil or something.
(There are some good counter examples on here though. Sometimes it is just people being twats)
Sometimes, acting twattishly is extremely rational behaviour.
(Whilst planning laws don't help, and the new ones should be an improvement, the other issue is the asymmetry of the fight. Objectors are more numerous, often have loads of spare time, and can write down any old nonsense. Councils have fewer staff and heaven help them if their standards slip below perfection.
Also, NIMBY objectors all live in one area, which gives them a lot of electoral power. If you told me that the real point of council reorganisation was to get rid of "local, responsive" (easily bullied into taking bad decisions) district planning committees, I wouldn't be surprised.)
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
Human nature.
We tend not to assemble facts and use them to draw a conclusion. Most of the time, we start with a visceral response and then marshall facts to lead to that conclusion.
Did you read the New Yorker piece on cognitive dissonance?
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
And building anti tank traps is what the Home Guard used to do in WWII. Strangely, people find the idea to be *not* liberating.
Personally I think we should go with A39 Tortoise vs TOG2 - I still say the 28lbr was a great idea.
For the more boring types - Canary Wharf uses flower boxes. In their case, an external stainless steel box, with metric tons of concrete hidden inside. You can make those slide out of the way as well.
Last time I was in Edinburgh, the street fortifications were really in your face.
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
Presumably you feel the same way about reporting of -say- gun deaths?
Some good news for a change; the Thai vs Cambodia ‘war’ seems to have cooled significantly. Our Thai co-in-laws …… our son’s in-laws ….. have been told they can leave his home, to which they’d been evacuated., and go back to their border-area farm. They’re going tomorrow, which leaves son etc to come to ours for Christmas.
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
Why was it even something they were tweeting about?
I guess it is their job to drum up interest. Jesus did, after all, visit England, as noted in Jerusalem. Further, one of the experts quoted wrote the book, God is an Englishman; Boris is a fan.
God is an Englishman - this was proven by Admiral Fisher on the scientific basis of England’s location with respect to Europe and the lanes.
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
Why was it even something they were tweeting about?
I guess it is their job to drum up interest. Jesus did, after all, visit England, as noted in Jerusalem. Further, one of the experts quoted wrote the book, God is an Englishman; Boris is a fan.
God is an Englishman - this was proven by Admiral Fisher on the scientific basis of England’s location with respect to Europe and the lanes.
A long way short of ideal for insolation, or space launch, though.
Interesting lack of memory 1 day after Paul Doyle was imprisoned for 21 years for injuring 130 people with his motor vehicle in 2 minutes, of whom 50 had to go to hospital, in crowds in Liverpool.
I think they need to wake up.
I argue about bad design with these things, as I do with all transport infra at which this country is completely crap on the detail, but I'll support the principle. Cambridge and York had particular problems.
I'll give them the stuff about the strangeness of the "hostile vehicles" description, but then our media is full of "a car drove into X Y or Z" stuff every day.
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
And building anti tank traps is what the Home Guard used to do in WWII. Strangely, people find the idea to be *not* liberating.
Personally I think we should go with A39 Tortoise vs TOG2 - I still say the 28lbr was a great idea.
For the more boring types - Canary Wharf uses flower boxes. In their case, an external stainless steel box, with metric tons of concrete hidden inside. You can make those slide out of the way as well.
Last time I was in Edinburgh, the street fortifications were really in your face.
They are grim in Edinburgh. Especially the one in front of New College - what unimaginative, soulless creep thought putting in front of one out most iconic buildings was a good idea.
These ones look clean and tidy to me. Bath was very impressive as I recall.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Why is it the state imposing its will on individuals in an authoritarian way when it agrees to permit building a block of flats on the land next to somebody's house which they don't own, but it is not the state imposing its will in an authoritarian way when it refuses to permit somebody to build a block of flats on land they do own?
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
I don't mind if the state imposes it's will sometimes - that's one of the necessities of governing 70 million people. I'm just pointing out that NIMBYism is often a perfectly rational response. It's not evil or something.
(There are some good counter examples on here though. Sometimes it is just people being twats)
Sometimes, acting twattishly is extremely rational behaviour.
(Whilst planning laws don't help, and the new ones should be an improvement, the other issue is the asymmetry of the fight. Objectors are more numerous, often have loads of spare time, and can write down any old nonsense. Councils have fewer staff and heaven help them if their standards slip below perfection.
Also, NIMBY objectors all live in one area, which gives them a lot of electoral power. If you told me that the real point of council reorganisation was to get rid of "local, responsive" (easily bullied into taking bad decisions) district planning committees, I wouldn't be surprised.)
The government has consulted on taking away a lot of the power of planning committees by taking many decisions currently within their remits away, or reducing them down to a core of like five very experienced councillors who have undergone very specific training (presumably to take less decisions against policy which just get overturned on appeal). I don't recall if they've come to a final view about it.
I think that's a bit extreme, I think there's a place for them, although they do need to remember that refusing without good policy reasons is not a easy out to please the objectors - if you don't have good enough reasons it will just get approved anyway and the objectors won't remember to thank you for trying, plus it will come with legal costs if the refusal was unreasonable.
I suspect it's a case where Ministers agree with the need to curtail unreasonable objections delaying things, but all MPs will get locals angry about something, and angry local cllrs, so they need to row back on plans to make things stricter - as local MPs have no influence on planning whatsoever, it is very rational for them to always back any objectors who are the loudest, and bash the local council (who bash national planning rules).
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
And building anti tank traps is what the Home Guard used to do in WWII. Strangely, people find the idea to be *not* liberating.
Personally I think we should go with A39 Tortoise vs TOG2 - I still say the 28lbr was a great idea.
For the more boring types - Canary Wharf uses flower boxes. In their case, an external stainless steel box, with metric tons of concrete hidden inside. You can make those slide out of the way as well.
Last time I was in Edinburgh, the street fortifications were really in your face.
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
Presumably you feel the same way about reporting of -say- gun deaths?
Yes, actually. The gun nuts aren't wrong when they suggest that it takes a human to do it, and the fact so many Americans seem to think shooting people is reasonable is as much of an issue as the guns themselves. Some self-defence laws are just mad - they've actually codified this attitude.
Otoh, I also believe we should treat road safety like we do aviation safety. I'm certainly not keen on jailing people for mistakes unless they are particularly egregious (I think lengthy driving bans are better). Mitigate human error as far as possible - 20mph limits, regulate out large SUVs/pick-up trucks, better physical protection for cyclists, LTNs etc.
Yesterday I went on a long cycle, and after getting back had a strong desire not to go to the store, and also -given the particularly hilly route I'd rode- for some pasta.
So... I put some spaghetti in a pot to boil (with a little olive oil and lots of salt).
While that was cooking I heated some olive oil in a pan, and put in one clove of thinly sliced garlic, and another 2-3 crushed cloves. Once those were getting a little fragrant, I chucked in a spoonful of capers. I then grabbed a little can of the nicest tuna I could find, and chucked it in with the capers and garlic. I then kept this on a very low heat and broke the fillets up somewhat.
When the pasta was al dente, I drained all but a cup (or maybe a little less) of the water, and put it in with the garlic, olive oil, capers and tuna, and mixed it well.
I then headed off to the fridge again, found some parsley, chopped it, and dumped it in with the pasta.
Very simple, really. The only expensive bit was the tuna. But even that is only $7 on Amazon if bought as part of a pack of 6. (Tonnino yellowfin tuna fillets in olive oil.)
FindOutNow just smells off. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them.
Main purpose seems to be to provide pear-clutchers with content for shit-posting on X etc.
I thought this was a big no no on this site?
One of he powers that be has questioned FoN's allocation of "never voted" respondents despite their BPC status. It does seem an odd methodology, but then if it gets the answer Goodwin likes I suppose it can't be bad. On the other hand there is nothing to say they are right and everyone else is wrong.
On here taking FoN polls seriously is an excellent trolling tool.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Why is it the state imposing its will on individuals in an authoritarian way when it agrees to permit building a block of flats on the land next to somebody's house which they don't own, but it is not the state imposing its will in an authoritarian way when it refuses to permit somebody to build a block of flats on land they do own?
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
I don't mind if the state imposes it's will sometimes - that's one of the necessities of governing 70 million people. I'm just pointing out that NIMBYism is often a perfectly rational response. It's not evil or something.
(There are some good counter examples on here though. Sometimes it is just people being twats)
It may not be evil, sure, but it being rational doesn't make for much of a defence when considering wider negatives for society, in my view.
There is a difference, though. If you were objecting because the new house next door got in the way of your home-made defensive laser system against space invaders, you might expect to get short shrift. Whereas it's rational to be upset at loss of your view, daylight on the roses/solar panels, etc. etc. But I look at the planning criteria and see those are not usually acceptable. I think the only occasions I ever objected were helping an elderly relative where there was a risk of a hot food takeaway being installed under his flat (a major change of use with its own special category in Scots planning law) and another where the council itself was selling off its school playing fields for housebuilding.
Yesterday I went on a long cycle, and after getting back had a strong desire not to go to the store, and also -given the particularly hilly route I'd rode- for some pasta.
So... I put some spaghetti in a pot to boil (with a little olive oil and lots of salt).
While that was cooking I heated some olive oil in a pan, and put in one clove of thinly sliced garlic, and another 2-3 crushed cloves. Once those were getting a little fragrant, I chucked in a spoonful of capers. I then grabbed a little can of the nicest tuna I could find, and chucked it in with the capers and garlic. I then kept this on a very low heat and broke the fillets up somewhat.
When the pasta was al dente, I drained all but a cup (or maybe a little less) of the water, and put it in with the garlic, olive oil, capers and tuna, and mixed it well.
I then headed off to the fridge again, found some parsley, chopped it, and dumped it in with the pasta.
Very simple, really. The only expensive bit was the tuna. But even that is only $7 on Amazon if bought as part of a pack of 6. (Tonnino yellowfin tuna fillets in olive oil.)
Wife and children declared it deilicious.
Tonight I'm doing a tortellini soup.
Mm! Very reminiscent of our supper last night - fried aubergines and onions and courgettes with hot smoked salmon and an egg broken in, served with pasta and cooked samphire. Normally we have capers but we'd run out!
But yours is still simpler. Definitely worth a try.
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
And building anti tank traps is what the Home Guard used to do in WWII. Strangely, people find the idea to be *not* liberating.
Personally I think we should go with A39 Tortoise vs TOG2 - I still say the 28lbr was a great idea.
For the more boring types - Canary Wharf uses flower boxes. In their case, an external stainless steel box, with metric tons of concrete hidden inside. You can make those slide out of the way as well.
Last time I was in Edinburgh, the street fortifications were really in your face.
28? 32 surely?
The 28lbr was another variant of the 3.7”, used on TOG2. It’s the gun actually on TOG2 in the museum.
Used a 17lbr derived breach and muzzle brake - which confused even the experts for years.
Yesterday I went on a long cycle, and after getting back had a strong desire not to go to the store, and also -given the particularly hilly route I'd rode- for some pasta.
So... I put some spaghetti in a pot to boil (with a little olive oil and lots of salt).
While that was cooking I heated some olive oil in a pan, and put in one clove of thinly sliced garlic, and another 2-3 crushed cloves. Once those were getting a little fragrant, I chucked in a spoonful of capers. I then grabbed a little can of the nicest tuna I could find, and chucked it in with the capers and garlic. I then kept this on a very low heat and broke the fillets up somewhat.
When the pasta was al dente, I drained all but a cup (or maybe a little less) of the water, and put it in with the garlic, olive oil, capers and tuna, and mixed it well.
I then headed off to the fridge again, found some parsley, chopped it, and dumped it in with the pasta.
Very simple, really. The only expensive bit was the tuna. But even that is only $7 on Amazon if bought as part of a pack of 6. (Tonnino yellowfin tuna fillets in olive oil.)
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
Presumably you feel the same way about reporting of -say- gun deaths?
Yes, actually. The gun nuts aren't wrong when they suggest that it takes a human to do it, and I think the fact so many Americans seem to think shooting people is reasonable is as much of an issue as the guns themselves. Some self-defence laws are just mad - they've actually codified this attitude.
Otoh, I also believe we should treat road safety like we do aviation safety. I'm certainly not keen on jailing people for mistakes unless they are particularly egregious (I think lengthy driving bans are better). Mitigate human error as far as possible - 20mph limits, regulate out large SUVs/pick-up trucks, better physical protection for cyclists, LTNs etc.
This is one of these areas where I tend to agree, but at the same time you need to understand *why* the justice system is as it is.
A driver is in control of a multi-ton metal box that is driven at great speed, resulting in a lot of kinetic energy. If said metal box comes into contact with a human being, there is a high chance that human will be severely injured or even die.
There is only a small chance of any individual act of -say- surfing the web while driving results in disaster. Which means the criminal justice system ends up punishing people very harshly when it does, because otherwise there is only a very limited deterrent effect.
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
And building anti tank traps is what the Home Guard used to do in WWII. Strangely, people find the idea to be *not* liberating.
Personally I think we should go with A39 Tortoise vs TOG2 - I still say the 28lbr was a great idea.
For the more boring types - Canary Wharf uses flower boxes. In their case, an external stainless steel box, with metric tons of concrete hidden inside. You can make those slide out of the way as well.
Last time I was in Edinburgh, the street fortifications were really in your face.
28? 32 surely?
The 28lbr was another variant of the 3.7”, used on TOG2. It’s the gun actually on TOG2 in the museum.
Used a 17lbr derived breach and muzzle brake - which confused even the experts for years.
Ah, thanks! I stand corrected. I'd always assumed it was an OQF 17 pounder on TOG2 for that very reason, so concluded you were thinking of the 32-pounder on Tortoise.
Mind, the Home Guard just made holes in the roadway or walls and used bits of old rail ... one can still see the holes here and there if you know what their significance is.
Some good news for a change; the Thai vs Cambodia ‘war’ seems to have cooled significantly. Our Thai co-in-laws …… our son’s in-laws ….. have been told they can leave his home, to which they’d been evacuated., and go back to their border-area farm. They’re going tomorrow, which leaves son etc to come to ours for Christmas.
Yesterday I went on a long cycle, and after getting back had a strong desire not to go to the store, and also -given the particularly hilly route I'd rode- for some pasta.
So... I put some spaghetti in a pot to boil (with a little olive oil and lots of salt).
While that was cooking I heated some olive oil in a pan, and put in one clove of thinly sliced garlic, and another 2-3 crushed cloves. Once those were getting a little fragrant, I chucked in a spoonful of capers. I then grabbed a little can of the nicest tuna I could find, and chucked it in with the capers and garlic. I then kept this on a very low heat and broke the fillets up somewhat.
When the pasta was al dente, I drained all but a cup (or maybe a little less) of the water, and put it in with the garlic, olive oil, capers and tuna, and mixed it well.
I then headed off to the fridge again, found some parsley, chopped it, and dumped it in with the pasta.
Very simple, really. The only expensive bit was the tuna. But even that is only $7 on Amazon if bought as part of a pack of 6. (Tonnino yellowfin tuna fillets in olive oil.)
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Why is it the state imposing its will on individuals in an authoritarian way when it agrees to permit building a block of flats on the land next to somebody's house which they don't own, but it is not the state imposing its will in an authoritarian way when it refuses to permit somebody to build a block of flats on land they do own?
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
I don't mind if the state imposes it's will sometimes - that's one of the necessities of governing 70 million people. I'm just pointing out that NIMBYism is often a perfectly rational response. It's not evil or something.
(There are some good counter examples on here though. Sometimes it is just people being twats)
It may not be evil, sure, but it being rational doesn't make for much of a defence when considering wider negatives for society, in my view.
There is a difference, though. If you were objecting because the new house next door got in the way of your home-made defensive laser system against space invaders, you might expect to get short shrift. Whereas it's rational to be upset at loss of your view, daylight on the roses/solar panels, etc. etc. But I look at the planning criteria and see those are not usually acceptable. I think the only occasions I ever objected were helping an elderly relative where there was a risk of a hot food takeaway being installed under his flat (a major change of use with its own special category in Scots planning law) and another where the council itself was selling off its school playing fields for housebuilding.
In England there's a well-defined list of "relevant planning matters", which is effective at filtering faked-up objections.
It's remarkable how rare species always move to the sites of new building projects just as they become publicly known.
Yesterday I went on a long cycle, and after getting back had a strong desire not to go to the store, and also -given the particularly hilly route I'd rode- for some pasta.
So... I put some spaghetti in a pot to boil (with a little olive oil and lots of salt).
While that was cooking I heated some olive oil in a pan, and put in one clove of thinly sliced garlic, and another 2-3 crushed cloves. Once those were getting a little fragrant, I chucked in a spoonful of capers. I then grabbed a little can of the nicest tuna I could find, and chucked it in with the capers and garlic. I then kept this on a very low heat and broke the fillets up somewhat.
When the pasta was al dente, I drained all but a cup (or maybe a little less) of the water, and put it in with the garlic, olive oil, capers and tuna, and mixed it well.
I then headed off to the fridge again, found some parsley, chopped it, and dumped it in with the pasta.
Very simple, really. The only expensive bit was the tuna. But even that is only $7 on Amazon if bought as part of a pack of 6. (Tonnino yellowfin tuna fillets in olive oil.)
Wife and children declared it deilicious.
Tonight I'm doing a tortellini soup.
Mm! Very reminiscent of our supper last night - fried aubergines and onions and courgettes with hot smoked salmon and an egg broken in, served with pasta and cooked samphire. Normally we have capers but we'd run out!
But yours is still simpler. Definitely worth a try.
You want simple ?
My recipe for omelette in a paper cup. Microwave a knob of butter for 1min to melt it. Add coarsely chopped watercress and three eggs; stir. Microwave at the medium setting for 2min 20 sec (may need experimentation for your particular microwave).
Yesterday I went on a long cycle, and after getting back had a strong desire not to go to the store, and also -given the particularly hilly route I'd rode- for some pasta.
So... I put some spaghetti in a pot to boil (with a little olive oil and lots of salt).
While that was cooking I heated some olive oil in a pan, and put in one clove of thinly sliced garlic, and another 2-3 crushed cloves. Once those were getting a little fragrant, I chucked in a spoonful of capers. I then grabbed a little can of the nicest tuna I could find, and chucked it in with the capers and garlic. I then kept this on a very low heat and broke the fillets up somewhat.
When the pasta was al dente, I drained all but a cup (or maybe a little less) of the water, and put it in with the garlic, olive oil, capers and tuna, and mixed it well.
I then headed off to the fridge again, found some parsley, chopped it, and dumped it in with the pasta.
Very simple, really. The only expensive bit was the tuna. But even that is only $7 on Amazon if bought as part of a pack of 6. (Tonnino yellowfin tuna fillets in olive oil.)
Wife and children declared it deilicious.
Tonight I'm doing a tortellini soup.
Mm! Very reminiscent of our supper last night - fried aubergines and onions and courgettes with hot smoked salmon and an egg broken in, served with pasta and cooked samphire. Normally we have capers but we'd run out!
But yours is still simpler. Definitely worth a try.
You want simple ?
My recipe for omelette in a paper cup. Microwave a knob of butter for 1min to melt it. Add coarsely chopped watercress and three eggs; stir. Microwave at the medium setting for 2min 20 sec (may need experimentation for your particular microwave).
Surprisingly good.
Omlettes are not exactly that complicated to make, though. You are basically swapping a tiny bit of washing up for a disgarded paper cup.
English Heritage admits promoting ‘nonsense’ theory about Christmas Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival ... In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date. ... In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25. ... A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
Sol Invictus was I believe a cult propagated by late-Empire pagans to counter Christianity.
Mithras's birthday was also 25 December, and I am not sure who decided the Incarnation happened on 25 March. The fact that Christmas llis 6bmonths after Midsummer probably has more to do with it, as a popular midwinter festival
Mithras' birthday was not on the 25th (the god from which the Mithraic cult derived was in any case not 'born' in any classical sense, but rather emerged from rock). The idea it was was due to a confusion with - ironically - the Sol Invictus cult.
The reason 25th December was fixed on as the day of Jesus' birth is because it was believed in the late Roman Empire that people died on the same day they were conceived. As Passover for the relevant year (which they wrongly thought was 33AD) was on the 25th March, they made that the Feast of the Annunciation and added nine months to get the date of Jesus' birth.
Hence why medieval Christian calendars started the new year on March 25th.
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
And building anti tank traps is what the Home Guard used to do in WWII. Strangely, people find the idea to be *not* liberating.
Personally I think we should go with A39 Tortoise vs TOG2 - I still say the 28lbr was a great idea.
For the more boring types - Canary Wharf uses flower boxes. In their case, an external stainless steel box, with metric tons of concrete hidden inside. You can make those slide out of the way as well.
Last time I was in Edinburgh, the street fortifications were really in your face.
28? 32 surely?
The 28lbr was another variant of the 3.7”, used on TOG2. It’s the gun actually on TOG2 in the museum.
Used a 17lbr derived breach and muzzle brake - which confused even the experts for years.
Ah, thanks! I stand corrected. I'd always assumed it was an OQF 17 pounder on TOG2 for that very reason, so concluded you were thinking of the 32-pounder on Tortoise.
Mind, the Home Guard just made holes in the roadway or walls and used bits of old rail ... one can still see the holes here and there if you know what their significance is.
The Home Guard stuff is exactly what I was thinking of.
I ask my question again. Is it a sub sample? Stuart Dickson used to get into hot water for posting regional sub samples. Apologies in advance if it is not a sub sample.
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
And building anti tank traps is what the Home Guard used to do in WWII. Strangely, people find the idea to be *not* liberating.
Personally I think we should go with A39 Tortoise vs TOG2 - I still say the 28lbr was a great idea.
For the more boring types - Canary Wharf uses flower boxes. In their case, an external stainless steel box, with metric tons of concrete hidden inside. You can make those slide out of the way as well.
Last time I was in Edinburgh, the street fortifications were really in your face.
28? 32 surely?
The 28lbr was another variant of the 3.7”, used on TOG2. It’s the gun actually on TOG2 in the museum.
Used a 17lbr derived breach and muzzle brake - which confused even the experts for years.
Ah, thanks! I stand corrected. I'd always assumed it was an OQF 17 pounder on TOG2 for that very reason, so concluded you were thinking of the 32-pounder on Tortoise.
Mind, the Home Guard just made holes in the roadway or walls and used bits of old rail ... one can still see the holes here and there if you know what their significance is.
The Home Guard stuff is exactly what I was thinking of.
Oh yes, I was just recalling that they didn't always use ****-off blocks of concrete.
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
Because a vehicle can't be hostile. A problem in driver-related violence reporting (deliberate or not) is that most media suggest "a car has hit and killed a cyclist", rather than "a driver of a car".
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
Presumably you feel the same way about reporting of -say- gun deaths?
Yes, actually. The gun nuts aren't wrong when they suggest that it takes a human to do it, and I think the fact so many Americans seem to think shooting people is reasonable is as much of an issue as the guns themselves. Some self-defence laws are just mad - they've actually codified this attitude.
Otoh, I also believe we should treat road safety like we do aviation safety. I'm certainly not keen on jailing people for mistakes unless they are particularly egregious (I think lengthy driving bans are better). Mitigate human error as far as possible - 20mph limits, regulate out large SUVs/pick-up trucks, better physical protection for cyclists, LTNs etc.
This is one of these areas where I tend to agree, but at the same time you need to understand *why* the justice system is as it is.
A driver is in control of a multi-ton metal box that is driven at great speed, resulting in a lot of kinetic energy. If said metal box comes into contact with a human being, there is a high chance that human will be severely injured or even die.
There is only a small chance of any individual act of -say- surfing the web while driving results in disaster. Which means the criminal justice system ends up punishing people very harshly when it does, because otherwise there is only a very limited deterrent effect.
Agree with that.
Though, weirdly, our justice system does consider a driving ban a very harsh punishment. Exceptional hardship rules see drivers with 30+ points driving around - that is a demonstrably dangerous individual to be on the road given detection rates.
It was even the case for Paul Doyle, in a city where 40% of households don't have access to a car.
I ask my question again. Is it a sub sample? Stuart Dickson used to get into hot water for posting regional sub samples. Apologies in advance if it is not a sub sample.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Why is it the state imposing its will on individuals in an authoritarian way when it agrees to permit building a block of flats on the land next to somebody's house which they don't own, but it is not the state imposing its will in an authoritarian way when it refuses to permit somebody to build a block of flats on land they do own?
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
I don't mind if the state imposes it's will sometimes - that's one of the necessities of governing 70 million people. I'm just pointing out that NIMBYism is often a perfectly rational response. It's not evil or something.
(There are some good counter examples on here though. Sometimes it is just people being twats)
It may not be evil, sure, but it being rational doesn't make for much of a defence when considering wider negatives for society, in my view.
There is a difference, though. If you were objecting because the new house next door got in the way of your home-made defensive laser system against space invaders, you might expect to get short shrift. Whereas it's rational to be upset at loss of your view, daylight on the roses/solar panels, etc. etc. But I look at the planning criteria and see those are not usually acceptable. I think the only occasions I ever objected were helping an elderly relative where there was a risk of a hot food takeaway being installed under his flat (a major change of use with its own special category in Scots planning law) and another where the council itself was selling off its school playing fields for housebuilding.
In England there's a well-defined list of "relevant planning matters", which is effective at filtering faked-up objections.
It's remarkable how rare species always move to the sites of new building projects just as they become publicly known.
Or, as I think I have comemnted here, how builders commission surveys in ther depths of winter etc. Edit: or put fine mesh nets over hedges and say "Nesting birds? What birds?"
But as for planning criteria, at least in Scotland, it is clearly stated as an invalid reason to object just because your house will lose value.
OTOH we have clear local authority overarching planning statements for local plans with maps and all, so we can see how things fit in, or do not. And that can be used as a reason to object.
I ask my question again. Is it a sub sample? Stuart Dickson used to get into hot water for posting regional sub samples. Apologies in advance if it is not a sub sample.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Why is it the state imposing its will on individuals in an authoritarian way when it agrees to permit building a block of flats on the land next to somebody's house which they don't own, but it is not the state imposing its will in an authoritarian way when it refuses to permit somebody to build a block of flats on land they do own?
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
I don't mind if the state imposes it's will sometimes - that's one of the necessities of governing 70 million people. I'm just pointing out that NIMBYism is often a perfectly rational response. It's not evil or something.
(There are some good counter examples on here though. Sometimes it is just people being twats)
Sometimes, acting twattishly is extremely rational behaviour.
(Whilst planning laws don't help, and the new ones should be an improvement, the other issue is the asymmetry of the fight. Objectors are more numerous, often have loads of spare time, and can write down any old nonsense. Councils have fewer staff and heaven help them if their standards slip below perfection.
Also, NIMBY objectors all live in one area, which gives them a lot of electoral power. If you told me that the real point of council reorganisation was to get rid of "local, responsive" (easily bullied into taking bad decisions) district planning committees, I wouldn't be surprised.)
Just down the road from me, objectors to a cycle bridge over the Thames have succeeded in driving up the cost so much with the delays they’ve imposed via successive court cases that the original contractor has pulled out altogether. Presumably because they don’t expect to be paid the increased costs.
So, despite losing every single case in court, the objectors have succeeded in preventing the building of the bridge, all for the the cost of about £20k in legal fees. The cost to the local council has been much higher I believe.
I ask my question again. Is it a sub sample? Stuart Dickson used to get into hot water for posting regional sub samples. Apologies in advance if it is not a sub sample.
It does look like the real thing. I would be sceptical of all those lefties jumping to Reform. Particularly after the Nathan Gill pro- Russia scandal here in Wales.
Comments
I noticed a new solar farm being built along the A1M in our county on our drive down to visit family at the weekend.
Almost as bad as working in a shop with a busker outside
https://x.com/sirwg202110/status/2001384834766360893?s=61
https://x.com/its_the_dr/status/2001470399184261180?s=61
😂😂
https://x.com/yisraelchaiadam/status/2001575244939534433?s=61
If you can’t prosecute treason in 4 years, then you have Italian levels of TheLawMeansThereIsNoLaw
They look to be a good idea for protecting pedestrianised areas and allowing commercial deliveries through.
New for this season at Leicester City matches are portable anti vehicle devices, maybe in response to the Liverpool incident.
15% lead and conservative 2nd
https://x.com/i/status/2001654092264017933
I agree that this helps mitigate the impact of a Paul Doyle situation.
Charity apologises over widely discredited theory that Roman Empire repurposed sun god festival
...
In a now-deleted post on X, the social media platform, on Wednesday, English Heritage wrote: “Why do we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? It was celebrated by the Romans as the birth of the sun god, Sol Invictus. After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, it was changed into a Christian holy day, and parts of the winter festivals were brought together.”
The claim is widely discredited among historians, because the evidence for Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25 appears later than the first records of Christians saying Christ was born on the date.
...
In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus dated the birth of Christ to December 25 by adding nine months – the term of a pregnancy – to March 25.
...
A spokesman for English Heritage said: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/english-heritage-promoting-nonsense-theory-christmas-jesus/ (£££)
There are multiple different parties here with different interests and opinions, and the state has a role here in setting the ground rules, mediating disputes, and balancing local and wider concerns. It can't please everybody, but that doesn't mean it's being authoritarian when it hands out a decision.
(I don't inherently disagree with the idea of fixing incentives or providing local inducements: that's just being pragmatic and trying to get more people on board. But it's entirely reasonable for the government to sometimes make choices in the wider interest even if there is local opposition.)
They are either uniquely correct or taking the piss with their peculiar methodology.
(There are some good counter examples on here though. Sometimes it is just people being twats)
If he can't, he should step down. Unless Putin is stopped, this is Europe's future.
Nats in Scotland and Wales.
Lib Dems in the Waitrose belt.
Greens in the nosering belt.
But that leaves an insanely large fraction of the country where there isn't really anyone. The Conservatives haven't decided whether they want to be absorbed by Reform or mark out a distinctive line on the right. And Labour are too unpopular.
It looks as if every time Starmer goes on the attack Reform gain
Mithras's birthday was also 25 December, and I am not sure who decided the Incarnation happened on 25 March. The fact that Christmas llis 6bmonths after Midsummer probably has more to do with it, as a popular midwinter festival
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/opinion/20251218/the-hwandan-gogi-controversy
Recently, at a press conference on Dec. 12, President Lee Jae Myung created a controversy by simply asking a question. He asked if the "Hwandan Gogi" should be considered as part of the research and discussions on Korean history. Sounds like an innocent question, but the response was overwhelming in condemnation of the president for even suggesting that the "Hwandan Gogi" be considered as a authentic historical document.
The "Hwandan Gogi" is a document allegedly compiled in 1911 by a man named Gye Yeon-su but not published until 1979 by Yi Yu-rip. It contains four separate “gogi” — old records. (As an aside, for those of you who speak a little Korean, the word “gogi” is not your familiar food from the barbecue restaurant. There are Chinese characters for this and they mean “old” “record.”)
There is scholarly unanimity about the record as a forgery and that it cannot be taken seriously. However, as soon as I say that, I can hear the chorus of objections ..
They are taken in in the winter.
Labour are uniquely unpopular but Find out now's methodology seems to work to the narrative people like Goodwin would like to pitch. They may of course be correct and all the rest wrong.
Some good news for a change; the Thai vs Cambodia ‘war’ seems to have cooled significantly. Our Thai co-in-laws …… our son’s in-laws ….. have been told they can leave his home, to which they’d been evacuated., and go back to their border-area farm. They’re going tomorrow, which leaves son etc to come to ours for Christmas.
If I'd bought a house without that sort of facility for leering neighbours, I wouldn't be pleased if it wer subsquently provided by later construction.
(Whilst planning laws don't help, and the new ones should be an improvement, the other issue is the asymmetry of the fight. Objectors are more numerous, often have loads of spare time, and can write down any old nonsense. Councils have fewer staff and heaven help them if their standards slip below perfection.
Also, NIMBY objectors all live in one area, which gives them a lot of electoral power. If you told me that the real point of council reorganisation was to get rid of "local, responsive" (easily bullied into taking bad decisions) district planning committees, I wouldn't be surprised.)
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/is-cognitive-dissonance-actually-a-thing
Personally I think we should go with A39 Tortoise vs TOG2 - I still say the 28lbr was a great idea.
For the more boring types - Canary Wharf uses flower boxes. In their case, an external stainless steel box, with metric tons of concrete hidden inside. You can make those slide out of the way as well.
Last time I was in Edinburgh, the street fortifications were really in your face.
I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them.
Main purpose seems to be to provide pear-clutchers with content for shit-posting on X etc.
I think they need to wake up.
I argue about bad design with these things, as I do with all transport infra at which this country is completely crap on the detail, but I'll support the principle. Cambridge and York had particular problems.
I'll give them the stuff about the strangeness of the "hostile vehicles" description, but then our media is full of "a car drove into X Y or Z" stuff every day.
These ones look clean and tidy to me. Bath was very impressive as I recall.
I think that's a bit extreme, I think there's a place for them, although they do need to remember that refusing without good policy reasons is not a easy out to please the objectors - if you don't have good enough reasons it will just get approved anyway and the objectors won't remember to thank you for trying, plus it will come with legal costs if the refusal was unreasonable.
I suspect it's a case where Ministers agree with the need to curtail unreasonable objections delaying things, but all MPs will get locals angry about something, and angry local cllrs, so they need to row back on plans to make things stricter - as local MPs have no influence on planning whatsoever, it is very rational for them to always back any objectors who are the loudest, and bash the local council (who bash national planning rules).
Otoh, I also believe we should treat road safety like we do aviation safety. I'm certainly not keen on jailing people for mistakes unless they are particularly egregious (I think lengthy driving bans are better). Mitigate human error as far as possible - 20mph limits, regulate out large SUVs/pick-up trucks, better physical protection for cyclists, LTNs etc.
Yesterday I went on a long cycle, and after getting back had a strong desire not to go to the store, and also -given the particularly hilly route I'd rode- for some pasta.
So... I put some spaghetti in a pot to boil (with a little olive oil and lots of salt).
While that was cooking I heated some olive oil in a pan, and put in one clove of thinly sliced garlic, and another 2-3 crushed cloves. Once those were getting a little fragrant, I chucked in a spoonful of capers. I then grabbed a little can of the nicest tuna I could find, and chucked it in with the capers and garlic. I then kept this on a very low heat and broke the fillets up somewhat.
When the pasta was al dente, I drained all but a cup (or maybe a little less) of the water, and put it in with the garlic, olive oil, capers and tuna, and mixed it well.
I then headed off to the fridge again, found some parsley, chopped it, and dumped it in with the pasta.
Very simple, really. The only expensive bit was the tuna. But even that is only $7 on Amazon if bought as part of a pack of 6. (Tonnino yellowfin tuna fillets in olive oil.)
Wife and children declared it deilicious.
Tonight I'm doing a tortellini soup.
On here taking FoN polls seriously is an excellent trolling tool.
But yours is still simpler. Definitely worth a try.
Used a 17lbr derived breach and muzzle brake - which confused even the experts for years.
A driver is in control of a multi-ton metal box that is driven at great speed, resulting in a lot of kinetic energy. If said metal box comes into contact with a human being, there is a high chance that human will be severely injured or even die.
There is only a small chance of any individual act of -say- surfing the web while driving results in disaster. Which means the criminal justice system ends up punishing people very harshly when it does, because otherwise there is only a very limited deterrent effect.
Mind, the Home Guard just made holes in the roadway or walls and used bits of old rail ... one can still see the holes here and there if you know what their significance is.
Odd, that!
(Although I am aware this has been a flawed narrative of yours for almost a year).
I'm sure it's available in the UK.
Ortiz is also excellent.
Read what you will from that
It's remarkable how rare species always move to the sites of new building projects just as they become publicly known.
My recipe for omelette in a paper cup.
Microwave a knob of butter for 1min to melt it. Add coarsely chopped watercress and three eggs; stir.
Microwave at the medium setting for 2min 20 sec (may need experimentation for your particular microwave).
Surprisingly good.
The reason 25th December was fixed on as the day of Jesus' birth is because it was believed in the late Roman Empire that people died on the same day they were conceived. As Passover for the relevant year (which they wrongly thought was 33AD) was on the 25th March, they made that the Feast of the Annunciation and added nine months to get the date of Jesus' birth.
Hence why medieval Christian calendars started the new year on March 25th.
Bit more on Mithras here if you're interested:
https://historyforatheists.com/2016/12/the-great-myths-2-christmas-mithras-and-paganism/
Though, weirdly, our justice system does consider a driving ban a very harsh punishment. Exceptional hardship rules see drivers with 30+ points driving around - that is a demonstrably dangerous individual to be on the road given detection rates.
It was even the case for Paul Doyle, in a city where 40% of households don't have access to a car.
But as for planning criteria, at least in Scotland, it is clearly stated as an invalid reason to object just because your house will lose value.
OTOH we have clear local authority overarching planning statements for local plans with maps and all, so we can see how things fit in, or do not. And that can be used as a reason to object.
Blog post from the Cardiff University commissioners: https://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/thinking-wales/general-election-voting-intention-centre-left-fragmentation-and-the-reform-uk-challenge/?share=print&nb=1
So, despite losing every single case in court, the objectors have succeeded in preventing the building of the bridge, all for the the cost of about £20k in legal fees. The cost to the local council has been much higher I believe.