Donald Trump's letter to the Norwegian prime minister.
"Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT"
Marks can't understand why Starmer is continuing with normalcy bias, particularly as US Government policy is to ensure the election of Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, and Elon Musk and MAGA consider Starmer to be a fascist.
It is very good, and he eviscerates Starmer's "weakness".
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
There are clearly still lots of really smart engineers in Britain who can do great things if the country gets behind them.
Britain needs British businesses to invest in engineering excellence instead of sweating assets to increase dividend payments. How do we create that change?
Make it competitive.
How’s about we give 10 teams of engineers £100m each, and let them build a pair of cars to a fixed set of regulations.
Every couple of weeks we’ll take all the cars to a track somewhere in the world, and we can see who built the fastest one.
We can put it on TV, and the teams can sell sponsorship on the cars. If they can. Get enough sponsorship they might be able to afford to hire the best driver for their cars.
Do you see where I’m going yet…?
Sure F1 is great, but regular British businesses are awful at investment, so despite Britain and British engineers playing a leading role in F1, we don't have the world-leading automotive car industry you might hope would be the knock-on from that.
Capitalist markets are competitive. The prize is making large profits. But British businesses don't play the game in the way that leads to long-term success.
In the defence industry it makes sense for the government to create competitions for companies to demonstrate technologies to fulfil certain tasks, but that level of intervention doesn't make sense for innovation in all areas of the economy.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
By the way, don't bother with the Lynley reboot. Almost comically badly-written at moments. More like a Channel 5 pulp murder mystery than a BBC production.
It was pretty dreadful. They had tried to get a bit of a scandi Wallander feel to it but Lynsey was played like some cliche of an upper class arrogant toff with zero qualities. I actually cannot remember any of the storylines only a week or two on either.
Yes, it was awful. But nowhere near as bad as Dawn French's latest BBC 'sitcom', Can you keep a Secret?, which the boss made me watch last night. I don't think I've seen anything as bad in my nearly 70 years. Worth a watch just for the sheer horror of the script (though we abandoned it after Episode 2).
Marks can't understand why Starmer is continuing with normalcy bias, particularly as US Government policy is to ensure the election of Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, and Elon Musk and MAGA consider Starmer to be a fascist.
It is very good, and he eviscerates Starmer's "weakness".
I can't keep up, surely if Musk and MAGA consider Starmer a fascist they would consider him an ally?
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
There are clearly still lots of really smart engineers in Britain who can do great things if the country gets behind them.
Britain needs British businesses to invest in engineering excellence instead of sweating assets to increase dividend payments. How do we create that change?
Offer businesses more incentives/tax reliefs to invest in R&D and Universities are a great place for potential R&D development. Fund more of them. For starters.
Businesses need to make a profit and paying a dividend is not a bad thing as long as there is sufficient cover. Far from it. Some companies see it as a matter of pride to annually increase their dividend payments.
You have to get from R&D to industrial production.
But certainly, tax incentives are a small part of that.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
"bottom ash" sounds like a euphamism for ass-crack dandruff...
Marks can't understand why Starmer is continuing with normalcy bias, particularly as US Government policy is to ensure the election of Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, and Elon Musk and MAGA consider Starmer to be a fascist.
It is very good, and he eviscerates Starmer's "weakness".
I can't keep up, surely if Musk and MAGA consider Starmer a fascist they would consider him an ally?
No Starmer is a fascist. They are not fascist. Or so it goes.
Limiting Musk's X and Grok on the grounds of child safety is fascism. Shooting an unarmed mom in the face apparently is not.
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
There are clearly still lots of really smart engineers in Britain who can do great things if the country gets behind them.
Britain needs British businesses to invest in engineering excellence instead of sweating assets to increase dividend payments. How do we create that change?
Make it competitive.
How’s about we give 10 teams of engineers £100m each, and let them build a pair of cars to a fixed set of regulations.
Every couple of weeks we’ll take all the cars to a track somewhere in the world, and we can see who built the fastest one.
We can put it on TV, and the teams can sell sponsorship on the cars. If they can. Get enough sponsorship they might be able to afford to hire the best driver for their cars.
Do you see where I’m going yet…?
Sure F1 is great, but regular British businesses are awful at investment, so despite Britain and British engineers playing a leading role in F1, we don't have the world-leading automotive car industry you might hope would be the knock-on from that.
Capitalist markets are competitive. The prize is making large profits. But British businesses don't play the game in the way that leads to long-term success.
In the defence industry it makes sense for the government to create competitions for companies to demonstrate technologies to fulfil certain tasks, but that level of intervention doesn't make sense for innovation in all areas of the economy.
Which is a fair reply to my slightly flippant answer.
The general complaint is that there’s a lack of venture capital available in the UK, so such innovation that does happen is quickly sold into the US.
This is where the sovereign wealth of places like the Gulf states could possibly come in useful, with some incentives for FDI from the government.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
"bottom ash" sounds like a euphamism for ass-crack dandruff...
We are on the verge of returning to Leon's original request which I am circling around.
Think of your wood burner and the ash that falls to the bottom but on an industrial scale.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
There are clearly still lots of really smart engineers in Britain who can do great things if the country gets behind them.
Britain needs British businesses to invest in engineering excellence instead of sweating assets to increase dividend payments. How do we create that change?
Offer businesses more incentives/tax reliefs to invest in R&D and Universities are a great place for potential R&D development. Fund more of them. For starters.
Businesses need to make a profit and paying a dividend is not a bad thing as long as there is sufficient cover. Far from it. Some companies see it as a matter of pride to annually increase their dividend payments.
You have to get from R&D to industrial production.
But certainly, tax incentives are a small part of that.
The UK is good at TRL 1-3, OKish at TRL 4-5 and rubbish for the rest
I do not envy Starmer and did not like his fawning over Trump but he has little choice and I agree with his approach
Anyone thinking Ed Davey 's antagonism to Trump would be helpful is just wanting to kick Trump [ as we all do] but would only have one result in making Trump more extreme
I fear that Trump is not going to back down and his letter to Norway is alarming
He can take devastating action against NATO, Europe and others including hugh tariffs, end US NATO membership, and withdraw support for Ukraine and withdraw his military from Europe
Furthermore, has anyone considered that even if Trump goes others in the US will continue their demand to control Greenland
The fact is Trump has all the cards and Europe is left powerless in a frightening change in security
I wish Starmer well, but I really doubt that he, or indeed anyone, will change Trumps ambition to own Greenland
Depends, if the Democrats get in next time they would leave Greenland to Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Even most Republicans only want to buy Greenland, they oppose invading it
You dont know that
Look at the history of US and Greenland, and there is no doubt due to climate change the Artic region is at the front of US, Russia and China interests
The world is changing and US does not need military action to acquire Greenland as we are seeing now
I do know that.
Not a single Democratic Congressman or Senator has said the US needs to take Greenland and 79% of Democrat voters oppose even trying to buy Greenland.
Greenland is strategically the most important area east of the US to defend the wests interests in the Artic
Neither do you - the US already has a base and there are no restrictions on them expanding their operations there. Denmark is a NATO ally, spends more than we do on defence and lost as many troops per capita as the US in Afghanistan. There's no logic behind this BigG, not sure why you're even trying to find some given the character we're dealing with.
If you need some evidence, Europe just bolstered troop numbers there and Trump took that as provocation. It's conquest, nothing more.
The point that is being missed is that Trump is determined to own it no matter how much pleading Europe and other countries complain
I do not want the US owning Greenland but pointing out some hard facts is important in the context of discussion
Sure Trump is determined, but that doesn't mean we have to give way.
We can make it clear to America that if they go ahead with this there will be consequences, and if they don't want to suffer those consequences then they should deal with Trump.
Then it's up to America to decide.
The tactic of fawning over Trump and giving him everything he wants to placate him, as though he's an omnipotent Dudley Dursley, has to stop. It doesn't work.
An annoucement at WEF that a coalition of a dozen European countries intends to develop a new common independent nuclear deterrent, would probably make the news Stateside.
It would also make news domestically. The Greens, Lib Dems, half the Labour Party, the Nationalists, the Churches, the luvvies and the bien-pensants would wet themselves.
Two birds, one stone…
Big 'annoying the right people is fine when we do it' vibe.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
There are clearly still lots of really smart engineers in Britain who can do great things if the country gets behind them.
Britain needs British businesses to invest in engineering excellence instead of sweating assets to increase dividend payments. How do we create that change?
Make it competitive.
How’s about we give 10 teams of engineers £100m each, and let them build a pair of cars to a fixed set of regulations.
Every couple of weeks we’ll take all the cars to a track somewhere in the world, and we can see who built the fastest one.
We can put it on TV, and the teams can sell sponsorship on the cars. If they can. Get enough sponsorship they might be able to afford to hire the best driver for their cars.
Do you see where I’m going yet…?
Sure F1 is great, but regular British businesses are awful at investment, so despite Britain and British engineers playing a leading role in F1, we don't have the world-leading automotive car industry you might hope would be the knock-on from that.
Capitalist markets are competitive. The prize is making large profits. But British businesses don't play the game in the way that leads to long-term success.
In the defence industry it makes sense for the government to create competitions for companies to demonstrate technologies to fulfil certain tasks, but that level of intervention doesn't make sense for innovation in all areas of the economy.
It demonstrably does for an economy the size of China ... and could for the EU.
The devil as ever in the detail.
But recall that when we were a member we attracted an outsize share of investment.
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
For Starmer, it was good.
If you listen to the BBC and LBC it really is disgusting appeasement.
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
The style, not the voice, that Starmer seems unable to avoid is the same as Major. Bathos. Addressing the nation this morning on a major threat to world peace and world order and 80 years of western foreign and military policy he did OK, but can't avoid drifting off into domestic stuff about the cost of living and prices at the pumps or cones hotlines or something. He is absolutely anti-climactic. "Lower gas prices and breakfast clubs in our time".
OTOH thirty years on Major is still quite well regarded. Perhaps Starmer will be too.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
There are clearly still lots of really smart engineers in Britain who can do great things if the country gets behind them.
Britain needs British businesses to invest in engineering excellence instead of sweating assets to increase dividend payments. How do we create that change?
Offer businesses more incentives/tax reliefs to invest in R&D and Universities are a great place for potential R&D development. Fund more of them. For starters.
Businesses need to make a profit and paying a dividend is not a bad thing as long as there is sufficient cover. Far from it. Some companies see it as a matter of pride to annually increase their dividend payments.
You have to get from R&D to industrial production.
But certainly, tax incentives are a small part of that.
Hence why I said ‘for starters’ it was not meant as an exhaustive list.
Businesses will only do what is strategically in their interest. Universities can be a little more creative.
Scalability is an issue, as is potential demand. I used to have suppliers come to me with new products and new developments and we had no interest. They had not done voice of the customer.
I worked in industry for many years including new product development and new plant/capital to support it.
Donald Trump's letter to the Norwegian prime minister.
"Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT"
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
Doesn't the bottom ash go into road building as a base? We could fill a lot of potholes with it.
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
There are clearly still lots of really smart engineers in Britain who can do great things if the country gets behind them.
Britain needs British businesses to invest in engineering excellence instead of sweating assets to increase dividend payments. How do we create that change?
Start with making banks invest in engineering instead of property.
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
For Starmer, it was good.
If you listen to the BBC and LBC it really is disgusting appeasement.
Presumably GB News is going with not enough disgusting appeasement?
Now confirmed: the extraordinary summit of EU leaders to address the Greenland crisis will take place in Brussels on Thursday, 22 January.
It will start, quite unusually, at 19.00 CET.
...5 days later? Weak. Should be 19:00 tonight.
Thought the same. The comment that only two countries can stop Trump (China and Russia) is wrong. It's China and the EU, but the EU is paralysed by delay and indecision. They shouldn't be waiting till Thursday to 'have a meeting to have a meeting' and then come out with Hans Blix from Team America 'We will be very very angry and we will write you a letter......'. The EU needs a meeting tonight, or even this afternoon and they need a response. They (and us) are being played for fools.
And worse, Trump is right. We, and they (the EU) are acting like fools.
Unless they are acting in the background and not telling Trump.
Donald Trump's letter to the Norwegian prime minister.
"Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT"
So, that's genuine, not a skit from Saturday Night Live? Unbelievable, they need to invoke the 25th amendment.
Such a toddler tantrum.
Problem there is Trump is the Devil we know, Vance is the Devil we don't know and could well be worse - remember what Vance was like with Zelenskyy the first time Zelenskyy went to the White House..
Honestly boycotting the World Cup would be the most effective and probably the least disruptive of all of the options available to Europe. I’m not sure how you can send teams and fans to contribute to a spectacle designed entirely to celebrate a guy trying to invade your territory.
Donald Trump's letter to the Norwegian prime minister.
"Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT"
So, that's genuine, not a skit from Saturday Night Live? Unbelievable, they need to invoke the 25th amendment.
Such a toddler tantrum.
Problem there is Trump is the Devil we know, Vance is the Devil we don't know and could well be worse - remember what Vance was like with Zelenskyy the first time Zelenskyy went to the White House..
Except we don't know Trump. He is completely irrational. Flattery doesn't work. Coercion might. Or it might provoke him further.
Vance may be even more evil than trump, but he is rational AFAIK.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
"bottom ash" sounds like a euphamism for ass-crack dandruff...
We are on the verge of returning to Leon's original request which I am circling around.
Think of your wood burner and the ash that falls to the bottom but on an industrial scale.
But can’t you just put that on the garden as a fertiliser ?
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
I specifically asked if we could TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS and yet what do get? Not a peep - especially from the Centrist Dads
For me, this speaks volumes. This forum would rather talk about anything, literally anything - NATO, Tory politics, political betting, Brexit, Greenland, Gaza
But bottoms? Nada
Fine. Do fat bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go ‘round?
Now you’re just lowering the tone
I meant a serious discussion
Ok. If PB is unprepared to address this in an adult way. Let’s ask an even bigger question: how much would you pay to avoid giving oral sex to Lord Heseltine?
At his rather advanced years surely it’s moot point as he would be unlikely to get aroused ?
That’s why, for me, the price would be pretty high. You’d have to really work at it
I specifically asked if we could TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS and yet what do get? Not a peep - especially from the Centrist Dads
For me, this speaks volumes. This forum would rather talk about anything, literally anything - NATO, Tory politics, political betting, Brexit, Greenland, Gaza
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
There are clearly still lots of really smart engineers in Britain who can do great things if the country gets behind them.
Britain needs British businesses to invest in engineering excellence instead of sweating assets to increase dividend payments. How do we create that change?
Offer businesses more incentives/tax reliefs to invest in R&D and Universities are a great place for potential R&D development. Fund more of them. For starters.
Businesses need to make a profit and paying a dividend is not a bad thing as long as there is sufficient cover. Far from it. Some companies see it as a matter of pride to annually increase their dividend payments.
You have to get from R&D to industrial production.
But certainly, tax incentives are a small part of that.
Hence why I said ‘for starters’ it was not meant as an exhaustive list.
Businesses will only do what is strategically in their interest. Universities can be a little more creative.
Scalability is an issue, as is potential demand. I used to have suppliers come to me with new products and new developments and we had no interest. They had not done voice of the customer.
I worked in industry for many years including new product development and new plant/capital to support it.
And you have to sweat assets to get the payback.
The point is that we've had numerous schemes, over several decades, to incentivise R&D. They've done very little indeed to shift the dial on the deindustrialisation that's been ongoing since the 80s.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
Doesn't the bottom ash go into road building as a base? We could fill a lot of potholes with it.
Yes, bottom ash is typically used in aggregates production. But you want to extract the metals first, and sell them.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
Doesn't the bottom ash go into road building as a base? We could fill a lot of potholes with it.
Some does. It depends what is being burned. If highly calorific "clean burn" material like solvents as a cement kiln fuel for example, and that ash can be sold to be added to the cement product. Most domestic bottom ash goes to landfill because it is contaminated by all sorts of old rubbish residue, otherwise further expensive sorting is required, although there are facilities that will do that.
I specifically asked if we could TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS and yet what do get? Not a peep - especially from the Centrist Dads
For me, this speaks volumes. This forum would rather talk about anything, literally anything - NATO, Tory politics, political betting, Brexit, Greenland, Gaza
But bottoms? Nada
Fine. Do fat bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go ‘round?
Now you’re just lowering the tone
I meant a serious discussion
Ok. If PB is unprepared to address this in an adult way. Let’s ask an even bigger question: how much would you pay to avoid giving oral sex to Lord Heseltine?
At his rather advanced years surely it’s moot point as he would be unlikely to get aroused ?
That’s why, for me, the price would be pretty high. You’d have to really work at it
I went to an all-boys' school. One of the subjects we discussed during lunch break was "would you let a grown man roger you for a million pounds?". Purely on a hypothetical basis, of course
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
His voice physically distresses me. No joke. I get a kind of psychic nausea, feel genuinely queasy, and have to turn it off
He’s the first actual human being to suffer from the Uncanny Valley effect
I specifically asked if we could TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS and yet what do get? Not a peep - especially from the Centrist Dads
For me, this speaks volumes. This forum would rather talk about anything, literally anything - NATO, Tory politics, political betting, Brexit, Greenland, Gaza
But bottoms? Nada
Fine. Do fat bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go ‘round?
Now you’re just lowering the tone
I meant a serious discussion
Ok. If PB is unprepared to address this in an adult way. Let’s ask an even bigger question: how much would you pay to avoid giving oral sex to Lord Heseltine?
At his rather advanced years surely it’s moot point as he would be unlikely to get aroused ?
That’s why, for me, the price would be pretty high. You’d have to really work at it
I went to an all-boys' school. One of the subjects we discussed during lunch break was "would you let a grown man roger you for a million pounds?". Purely on a hypothetical basis, of course
Surely the formulation is normally "Would you let a grown man roger you for one pound? No? Ok, then how about for one million? Yes? Ok then you're just haggling over the price..."
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
The style, not the voice, that Starmer seems unable to avoid is the same as Major. Bathos. Addressing the nation this morning on a major threat to world peace and world order and 80 years of western foreign and military policy he did OK, but can't avoid drifting off into domestic stuff about the cost of living and prices at the pumps or cones hotlines or something. He is absolutely anti-climactic. "Lower gas prices and breakfast clubs in our time".
OTOH thirty years on Major is still quite well regarded. Perhaps Starmer will be too.
If the tool his father made continues to equivocate and European leaders ask him to choose between them and Trump, sadly, I don’t know which way he will jump. Does anyone know whether Lord North’s father was a toolmaker?
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
There are clearly still lots of really smart engineers in Britain who can do great things if the country gets behind them.
Britain needs British businesses to invest in engineering excellence instead of sweating assets to increase dividend payments. How do we create that change?
Offer businesses more incentives/tax reliefs to invest in R&D and Universities are a great place for potential R&D development. Fund more of them. For starters.
Businesses need to make a profit and paying a dividend is not a bad thing as long as there is sufficient cover. Far from it. Some companies see it as a matter of pride to annually increase their dividend payments.
You have to get from R&D to industrial production.
But certainly, tax incentives are a small part of that.
Hence why I said ‘for starters’ it was not meant as an exhaustive list.
Businesses will only do what is strategically in their interest. Universities can be a little more creative.
Scalability is an issue, as is potential demand. I used to have suppliers come to me with new products and new developments and we had no interest. They had not done voice of the customer.
I worked in industry for many years including new product development and new plant/capital to support it.
And you have to sweat assets to get the payback.
The point is that we've had numerous schemes, over several decades, to incentivise R&D. They've done very little indeed to shift the dial on the deindustrialisation that's been ongoing since the 80s.
Why would they ? deindustrialisation has been something we have been, as a nation, comfortable with and newly developed products will go abroad.
We’ve been happy to offshore manufacturing and let it go really for most of my life.
Donald Trump's letter to the Norwegian prime minister.
"Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT"
So, that's genuine, not a skit from Saturday Night Live? Unbelievable, they need to invoke the 25th amendment.
Such a toddler tantrum.
Problem there is Trump is the Devil we know, Vance is the Devil we don't know and could well be worse - remember what Vance was like with Zelenskyy the first time Zelenskyy went to the White House..
Simple solution: indict Trump and Vance together. You make Mike Johnson President as next in line. He'd be shit, but not as shit as Trump or Vance.
I specifically asked if we could TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS and yet what do get? Not a peep - especially from the Centrist Dads
For me, this speaks volumes. This forum would rather talk about anything, literally anything - NATO, Tory politics, political betting, Brexit, Greenland, Gaza
But bottoms? Nada
Fine. Do fat bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go ‘round?
Now you’re just lowering the tone
I meant a serious discussion
Ok. If PB is unprepared to address this in an adult way. Let’s ask an even bigger question: how much would you pay to avoid giving oral sex to Lord Heseltine?
At his rather advanced years surely it’s moot point as he would be unlikely to get aroused ?
That’s why, for me, the price would be pretty high. You’d have to really work at it
I went to an all-boys' school. One of the subjects we discussed during lunch break was "would you let a grown man roger you for a million pounds?". Purely on a hypothetical basis, of course
Honestly boycotting the World Cup would be the most effective and probably the least disruptive of all of the options available to Europe. I’m not sure how you can send teams and fans to contribute to a spectacle designed entirely to celebrate a guy trying to invade your territory.
I agree with this
The Americans are really excited about the World Cup. I just did a World Cup road trip to 3 different hosting cities - LA, SF, Seattle. It’s a big deal, commercially, culturally, socially. Trump is cosy with FIFA, he wants a grand spectacle, etc
If all the European teams pulled out that would totally ruin the tournament, lose lots of money for lots of people, and be a real slap in the face for Trump
Bit tough on Mexico and Canada, but if Europe REALLY wants to hurt Trump and demonstrate some soft power, this is it. There is nothing else as potent
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
"bottom ash" sounds like a euphamism for ass-crack dandruff...
We are on the verge of returning to Leon's original request which I am circling around.
Think of your wood burner and the ash that falls to the bottom but on an industrial scale.
But can’t you just put that on the garden as a fertiliser ?
Potash for the roses. Yes, as a municipal householder from your wood burner, but don't tell the Environment Agency if you run a waste to energy facility. As a permitted site you would need mobile land spreading permits, deployment permissions and it would probably need to be in a liquid state, i.e. mixed with other stuff. The ph levels of the soil would be taken account of in the deployment plan too.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
Mortgages are the opposite of savings though.
Higher mortgage rates also mean higher savings rates.
And interest rates were rising before Truss, after Truss, are set by the Bank of England and rose across the world.
I wonder if BobbyJ was overextended on his mortgage ?
This is not to defend Truss, whose economic strategy was complete bollox.
It would be somewhat an oddity for Truss's idea of borrowing more while cutting taxes to become mainstream.
Those wishing to invest in somewhere other than the US (and their bubble market) could finance a renaissance in UK DIB to become the alternative supplier of choice for weapons. Seems like a good punt for personal investment too.
There are clearly still lots of really smart engineers in Britain who can do great things if the country gets behind them.
Britain needs British businesses to invest in engineering excellence instead of sweating assets to increase dividend payments. How do we create that change?
Offer businesses more incentives/tax reliefs to invest in R&D and Universities are a great place for potential R&D development. Fund more of them. For starters.
Businesses need to make a profit and paying a dividend is not a bad thing as long as there is sufficient cover. Far from it. Some companies see it as a matter of pride to annually increase their dividend payments.
You have to get from R&D to industrial production.
But certainly, tax incentives are a small part of that.
Hence why I said ‘for starters’ it was not meant as an exhaustive list.
Businesses will only do what is strategically in their interest. Universities can be a little more creative.
Scalability is an issue, as is potential demand. I used to have suppliers come to me with new products and new developments and we had no interest. They had not done voice of the customer.
I worked in industry for many years including new product development and new plant/capital to support it.
And you have to sweat assets to get the payback.
The point is that we've had numerous schemes, over several decades, to incentivise R&D. They've done very little indeed to shift the dial on the deindustrialisation that's been ongoing since the 80s.
Why would they ? deindustrialisation has been something we have been, as a nation, comfortable with and newly developed products will go abroad.
We’ve been happy to offshore manufacturing and let it go really for most of my life.
I specifically asked if we could TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS and yet what do get? Not a peep - especially from the Centrist Dads
For me, this speaks volumes. This forum would rather talk about anything, literally anything - NATO, Tory politics, political betting, Brexit, Greenland, Gaza
But bottoms? Nada
Fine. Do fat bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go ‘round?
Now you’re just lowering the tone
I meant a serious discussion
Ok. If PB is unprepared to address this in an adult way. Let’s ask an even bigger question: how much would you pay to avoid giving oral sex to Lord Heseltine?
At his rather advanced years surely it’s moot point as he would be unlikely to get aroused ?
That’s why, for me, the price would be pretty high. You’d have to really work at it
I went to an all-boys' school. One of the subjects we discussed during lunch break was "would you let a grown man roger you for a million pounds?". Purely on a hypothetical basis, of course
Was this a lunchtime debate club? If so, I think the teacher in charge will be in the newspapers soon or already.
Japan accuses the U.S. of failing to deliver $6.9B in military equipment, with 118 FMS contracts delayed over five years, forcing reliance on older gear and leaving critical systems like the E-2D Hawkeye unsupported despite advance payments. https://x.com/Defence_Index/status/2013104910708195334
I specifically asked if we could TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS and yet what do get? Not a peep - especially from the Centrist Dads
For me, this speaks volumes. This forum would rather talk about anything, literally anything - NATO, Tory politics, political betting, Brexit, Greenland, Gaza
But bottoms? Nada
Fine. Do fat bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go ‘round?
Now you’re just lowering the tone
I meant a serious discussion
Ok. If PB is unprepared to address this in an adult way. Let’s ask an even bigger question: how much would you pay to avoid giving oral sex to Lord Heseltine?
At his rather advanced years surely it’s moot point as he would be unlikely to get aroused ?
That’s why, for me, the price would be pretty high. You’d have to really work at it
What if you couldn’t get it aroused ?
You’d spend hours manipulating a geriatric todger for nothing ? On the plus side you wouldn’t have to perform the oral pleasuring, I guess, so that would be a load off your mind, unless you like that sort of thing.
Truss’s disastrous tenure as prime minister destroyed the savings of tens of thousands of people in this country.
I'm curious as to how that supposedly happened ?
Thinking back to the Truss interlude I'm pretty sure my net wealth increased - the lower level of sterling causing the value of my investments and pensions to increase.
I do wonder how many politicians have any idea about personal finances work for normal people.
As opposed to politicians whose personal finances depend on generous expenses, a final salary pension scheme and mysterious donations from dubious people.
It was the increase in mortgage rates that’s the issue.
On Topic. And I am not standing up for Truss here, but the true political history of what happened. Out of the two points of view in the header, Jenrick’s is far closer to fiction, and rewriting history. Once the party membership installed Truss ahead of Sunak, there were so many Tory MPs not remotely prepared to put up with that. The actual budget did very little, it was a £12B giveaway with all the stealth threshold tax in it - but this was misreported by all the media, opposition parties, and crucially at same time, so many in the Conservative Party siding with the media’s and opposition parties un true viewpoint as a giveaway splurge causing market meltdown. In reality markets go up and down, and it was not a wild splurge budget. Just one measure, borrowed from Keir Starmer and Labour, promise of £250B of government handouts to offset energy costs, spooked the markets because of the amount of borrowing involved. That is the true history of what happened. Truss was undermined and removed by her own parties MPs, who wanted the far more capable and electable Rishi Sunak as PM, not her mistakes as PM, as the budget had no real medium or long term hits in it - Hunt removed the £250B spending promise/policy on his day 1 and the markets instantly went from erupting to dormant volcano.
As it turned out, neither capable nor electable. But that's the analytical capability of Tory MPs for you.
I have some sympathy for Starmer. UK policy has been based around being close to the Americans since at least 1940. We deluded ourselves that we had influence over them when we usually didn't. Even after Suez this was a comfortable and comforting delusion. To accept that is all at an end is deeply disappointing.
But it is. To threaten another NATO member with an invasion is completely and utterly unacceptable. NATO has been staggering for a while. This is a knock out blow and a leader being honest with us would have to admit that rather than wishing it were not so. Starmer did not do that this morning. He no doubt thought that this was not in our interests. I respect his position but I also respectfully disagree.
We need to disengage from the US. We don't need to shout to the rooftops about it, we don't need to make a fuss and we don't need to do it all tomorrow. But we do need to get on with it. The terms of engagement have changed. Uncomfortable, unfortunate, expensive but necessary. We simply cannot assume that Trump is 4 years of madness and then things go back to normal. He has far too much support for that.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
"bottom ash" sounds like a euphamism for ass-crack dandruff...
We are on the verge of returning to Leon's original request which I am circling around.
Think of your wood burner and the ash that falls to the bottom but on an industrial scale.
But can’t you just put that on the garden as a fertiliser ?
Years ago, ash from the Byker incinerator was used to make paths on some allotments in Newcastle. The only problem was that toxic heavy metals leached out of the ash into the soil where folk were growing their vegetables.
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
Honestly boycotting the World Cup would be the most effective and probably the least disruptive of all of the options available to Europe. I’m not sure how you can send teams and fans to contribute to a spectacle designed entirely to celebrate a guy trying to invade your territory.
I agree with this
The Americans are really excited about the World Cup. I just did a World Cup road trip to 3 different hosting cities - LA, SF, Seattle. It’s a big deal, commercially, culturally, socially. Trump is cosy with FIFA, he wants a grand spectacle, etc
If all the European teams pulled out that would totally ruin the tournament, lose lots of money for lots of people, and be a real slap in the face for Trump
Bit tough on Mexico and Canada, but if Europe REALLY wants to hurt Trump and demonstrate some soft power, this is it. There is nothing else as potent
Boycotting the World Cup might annoy Trump but then either USA wins, which will please him no end (and remember his favourite son is a fan) or a South American team which might please voters in the diaspora communities.
I understand why Starmer gave that speech . But it’s still painful . The Trump administration will actively work to ensure Farage wins the next GE . And Starmer has to stand there continuing this pathetic charade.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
"bottom ash" sounds like a euphamism for ass-crack dandruff...
We are on the verge of returning to Leon's original request which I am circling around.
Think of your wood burner and the ash that falls to the bottom but on an industrial scale.
But can’t you just put that on the garden as a fertiliser ?
Years ago, ash from the Byker incinerator was used to make paths on some allotments in Newcastle. The only problem was that toxic heavy metals leached out of the ash into the soil where folk were growing their vegetables.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
Doesn't the bottom ash go into road building as a base? We could fill a lot of potholes with it.
Some does. It depends what is being burned. If highly calorific "clean burn" material like solvents as a cement kiln fuel for example, and that ash can be sold to be added to the cement product. Most domestic bottom ash goes to landfill because it is contaminated by all sorts of old rubbish residue, otherwise further expensive sorting is required, although there are facilities that will do that.
For the EfW I'm most familiar with (burning "black bag" waste) the bottom ash goes into aggregates.
In cement kilns, the combustion ash is already mixed with the limestone and therefore goes into the cement clinker automatically. They can burn practically any old shite in cement kilns. If some of that fuel is biogenic in origin, it cuts down on CO2 emissions, and with CCS, you could in theory get carbon-negative cement.
I understand why Starmer gave that speech . But it’s still painful . The Trump administration will actively work to ensure Farage wins the next GE . And Starmer has to stand there continuing this pathetic charade.
His problem is a fecked economy* is further fecked by tit-for-tat tariffs.
I understand why Starmer gave that speech . But it’s still painful . The Trump administration will actively work to ensure Farage wins the next GE . And Starmer has to stand there continuing this pathetic charade.
Honestly boycotting the World Cup would be the most effective and probably the least disruptive of all of the options available to Europe. I’m not sure how you can send teams and fans to contribute to a spectacle designed entirely to celebrate a guy trying to invade your territory.
I agree with this
The Americans are really excited about the World Cup. I just did a World Cup road trip to 3 different hosting cities - LA, SF, Seattle. It’s a big deal, commercially, culturally, socially. Trump is cosy with FIFA, he wants a grand spectacle, etc
If all the European teams pulled out that would totally ruin the tournament, lose lots of money for lots of people, and be a real slap in the face for Trump
Bit tough on Mexico and Canada, but if Europe REALLY wants to hurt Trump and demonstrate some soft power, this is it. There is nothing else as potent
It would piss him off even more if we could continue the World Cup but just delete the USA bit and play all games in Canada and Mexico. Maybe with the final in Venezuela.
I understand why Starmer gave that speech . But it’s still painful . The Trump administration will actively work to ensure Farage wins the next GE . And Starmer has to stand there continuing this pathetic charade.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
"bottom ash" sounds like a euphamism for ass-crack dandruff...
We are on the verge of returning to Leon's original request which I am circling around.
Think of your wood burner and the ash that falls to the bottom but on an industrial scale.
But can’t you just put that on the garden as a fertiliser ?
Years ago, ash from the Byker incinerator was used to make paths on some allotments in Newcastle. The only problem was that toxic heavy metals leached out of the ash into the soil where folk were growing their vegetables.
Hence Ant and Dec
(Un)interesting fact: Byker Grove was not set in Byker.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
Doesn't the bottom ash go into road building as a base? We could fill a lot of potholes with it.
Some does. It depends what is being burned. If highly calorific "clean burn" material like solvents as a cement kiln fuel for example, and that ash can be sold to be added to the cement product. Most domestic bottom ash goes to landfill because it is contaminated by all sorts of old rubbish residue, otherwise further expensive sorting is required, although there are facilities that will do that.
For the EfW I'm most familiar with (burning "black bag" waste) the bottom ash goes into aggregates.
In cement kilns, the combustion ash is already mixed with the limestone and therefore goes into the cement clinker automatically. They can burn practically any old shite in cement kilns. If some of that fuel is biogenic in origin, it cuts down on CO2 emissions, and with CCS, you could in theory get carbon-negative cement.
The cemfuel burns hot and clean. The clean bottom ash is then mixed with thee limestone. We were sending highly calorific solvent materials to be blended as cemfuel. So long as it has a calorific value it goes in the pot.
The municipal waste to energy facilities I deal with tend to landfill bottom ash complete with metal content. Even with higher rate landfill tax it is generally a cheaper option.
I understand why Starmer gave that speech . But it’s still painful . The Trump administration will actively work to ensure Farage wins the next GE . And Starmer has to stand there continuing this pathetic charade.
His problem is a fecked economy* is further fecked by tit-for-tat tariffs.
* Another Brexit bonus.
I'm in favour of putting tariffs on tat. Less sure about the former.
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
The style, not the voice, that Starmer seems unable to avoid is the same as Major. Bathos. Addressing the nation this morning on a major threat to world peace and world order and 80 years of western foreign and military policy he did OK, but can't avoid drifting off into domestic stuff about the cost of living and prices at the pumps or cones hotlines or something. He is absolutely anti-climactic. "Lower gas prices and breakfast clubs in our time".
OTOH thirty years on Major is still quite well regarded. Perhaps Starmer will be too.
Starmer (& Sunak) were preceded by Johnson and Truss and will be followed by Farage. The comparison will flatter S&S to a degree that is not warranted.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
Doesn't the bottom ash go into road building as a base? We could fill a lot of potholes with it.
Some does. It depends what is being burned. If highly calorific "clean burn" material like solvents as a cement kiln fuel for example, and that ash can be sold to be added to the cement product. Most domestic bottom ash goes to landfill because it is contaminated by all sorts of old rubbish residue, otherwise further expensive sorting is required, although there are facilities that will do that.
For the EfW I'm most familiar with (burning "black bag" waste) the bottom ash goes into aggregates.
In cement kilns, the combustion ash is already mixed with the limestone and therefore goes into the cement clinker automatically. They can burn practically any old shite in cement kilns. If some of that fuel is biogenic in origin, it cuts down on CO2 emissions, and with CCS, you could in theory get carbon-negative cement.
The cemfuel burns hot and clean. The clean bottom ash is then mixed with thee limestone. We were sending highly calorific solvent materials to be blended as cemfuel. So long as it has a calorific value it goes in the pot.
The municipal waste to energy facilities I deal with tend to landfill bottom ash complete with metal content. Even with higher rate landfill tax it is generally a cheaper option.
This is getting dangerously close to a work meeting, so best we end it there!
I specifically asked if we could TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS and yet what do get? Not a peep - especially from the Centrist Dads
For me, this speaks volumes. This forum would rather talk about anything, literally anything - NATO, Tory politics, political betting, Brexit, Greenland, Gaza
But bottoms? Nada
Fine. Do fat bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go ‘round?
Now you’re just lowering the tone
I meant a serious discussion
Ok. If PB is unprepared to address this in an adult way. Let’s ask an even bigger question: how much would you pay to avoid giving oral sex to Lord Heseltine?
At his rather advanced years surely it’s moot point as he would be unlikely to get aroused ?
That’s why, for me, the price would be pretty high. You’d have to really work at it
I went to an all-boys' school. One of the subjects we discussed during lunch break was "would you let a grown man roger you for a million pounds?". Purely on a hypothetical basis, of course
Honestly boycotting the World Cup would be the most effective and probably the least disruptive of all of the options available to Europe. I’m not sure how you can send teams and fans to contribute to a spectacle designed entirely to celebrate a guy trying to invade your territory.
I agree with this
The Americans are really excited about the World Cup. I just did a World Cup road trip to 3 different hosting cities - LA, SF, Seattle. It’s a big deal, commercially, culturally, socially. Trump is cosy with FIFA, he wants a grand spectacle, etc
If all the European teams pulled out that would totally ruin the tournament, lose lots of money for lots of people, and be a real slap in the face for Trump
Bit tough on Mexico and Canada, but if Europe REALLY wants to hurt Trump and demonstrate some soft power, this is it. There is nothing else as potent
Boycotting the World Cup might annoy Trump but then either USA wins, which will please him no end (and remember his favourite son is a fan) or a South American team which might please voters in the diaspora communities.
No, it would totally ruin the tournament. 80% of the best teams and players are European
It would be a commercially devastating boycott. No one would fucking care worldwide. No Mbappe, no Bellingham, no Dembele, no Kane, no Yamal, no Saka. No England, France, Spain, Germany
Worst World Cup EVAH. It would genuinely hurt
But the Europeans haven’t got the cullions to do it. I’d love if it if they did, if only to fuck off FIFA as WELL as Trump, two birds, one stone
WELKER: Not from the perspective of European leaders
BESSENT: European leaders will come around and understand they need to be under the US security umbrella. What would happen in Ukraine if the US pulled its support out? The whole thing would collapse.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
Doesn't the bottom ash go into road building as a base? We could fill a lot of potholes with it.
Some does. It depends what is being burned. If highly calorific "clean burn" material like solvents as a cement kiln fuel for example, and that ash can be sold to be added to the cement product. Most domestic bottom ash goes to landfill because it is contaminated by all sorts of old rubbish residue, otherwise further expensive sorting is required, although there are facilities that will do that.
For the EfW I'm most familiar with (burning "black bag" waste) the bottom ash goes into aggregates.
In cement kilns, the combustion ash is already mixed with the limestone and therefore goes into the cement clinker automatically. They can burn practically any old shite in cement kilns. If some of that fuel is biogenic in origin, it cuts down on CO2 emissions, and with CCS, you could in theory get carbon-negative cement.
The cemfuel burns hot and clean. The clean bottom ash is then mixed with thee limestone. We were sending highly calorific solvent materials to be blended as cemfuel. So long as it has a calorific value it goes in the pot.
The municipal waste to energy facilities I deal with tend to landfill bottom ash complete with metal content. Even with higher rate landfill tax it is generally a cheaper option.
This is getting dangerously close to a work meeting, so best we end it there!
We have nonetheless fulfilled Leon's requirement for discussing bottom. Although a far duller conversation than he envisaged.
I am at a waste to energy incinerator discussing the disposable of bottom ash if that helps.
Don't use the "I" word. "Energy recovery facility" is the preferred terminology for plants that, er, incinerate waste.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
Carbon capture is above my pay grade. I am merely advising on optimal disposal of bottom ash and the potential for salvaging ferrous and non ferrous residues.
Doesn't the bottom ash go into road building as a base? We could fill a lot of potholes with it.
Some does. It depends what is being burned. If highly calorific "clean burn" material like solvents as a cement kiln fuel for example, and that ash can be sold to be added to the cement product. Most domestic bottom ash goes to landfill because it is contaminated by all sorts of old rubbish residue, otherwise further expensive sorting is required, although there are facilities that will do that.
For the EfW I'm most familiar with (burning "black bag" waste) the bottom ash goes into aggregates.
In cement kilns, the combustion ash is already mixed with the limestone and therefore goes into the cement clinker automatically. They can burn practically any old shite in cement kilns. If some of that fuel is biogenic in origin, it cuts down on CO2 emissions, and with CCS, you could in theory get carbon-negative cement.
You see?
That’s why I said LET’S TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS
I felt the PB chat was getting a bit bogged down in arcane and boring stuff, and now here we are, as a result of my BOTTOMS intervention, gassing away happily about cement clinkers and limestone ash combustion
Honestly boycotting the World Cup would be the most effective and probably the least disruptive of all of the options available to Europe. I’m not sure how you can send teams and fans to contribute to a spectacle designed entirely to celebrate a guy trying to invade your territory.
I agree with this
The Americans are really excited about the World Cup. I just did a World Cup road trip to 3 different hosting cities - LA, SF, Seattle. It’s a big deal, commercially, culturally, socially. Trump is cosy with FIFA, he wants a grand spectacle, etc
If all the European teams pulled out that would totally ruin the tournament, lose lots of money for lots of people, and be a real slap in the face for Trump
Bit tough on Mexico and Canada, but if Europe REALLY wants to hurt Trump and demonstrate some soft power, this is it. There is nothing else as potent
What would hurt FIFA more financially, is sponsors pulling out
But as most of them are American, its not going to happen
Comments
What is she actually saying? Bobby’s arse is a trap door, and an army of Badenoch’s are going to come out and capture the Reform Party?
Marks can't understand why Starmer is continuing with normalcy bias, particularly as US Government policy is to ensure the election of Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, and Elon Musk and MAGA consider Starmer to be a fascist.
It is very good, and he eviscerates Starmer's "weakness".
Capitalist markets are competitive. The prize is making large profits. But British businesses don't play the game in the way that leads to long-term success.
In the defence industry it makes sense for the government to create competitions for companies to demonstrate technologies to fulfil certain tasks, but that level of intervention doesn't make sense for innovation in all areas of the economy.
Is the site you are visiting considering retrofitting CCS, by any chance?
We need a dog for scale.
But nowhere near as bad as Dawn French's latest BBC 'sitcom', Can you keep a Secret?, which the boss made me watch last night. I don't think I've seen anything as bad in my nearly 70 years. Worth a watch just for the sheer horror of the script (though we abandoned it after Episode 2).
I have a genuine problem with listening to Starmer speak: his whiny voice means I forget what he says a few moments after he says it, so I am in no position to say whether it was good or bad. So I'll leave that up to you.
My prejudices regarding his character lead me to think it'll be bad: perhaps somebody can persuade me otherwise but looking at the comments so far I doubt it.
But certainly, tax incentives are a small part of that.
Limiting Musk's X and Grok on the grounds of child safety is fascism. Shooting an unarmed mom in the face apparently is not.
The general complaint is that there’s a lack of venture capital available in the UK, so such innovation that does happen is quickly sold into the US.
This is where the sovereign wealth of places like the Gulf states could possibly come in useful, with some incentives for FDI from the government.
Think of your wood burner and the ash that falls to the bottom but on an industrial scale.
The devil as ever in the detail.
But recall that when we were a member we attracted an outsize share of investment.
OTOH thirty years on Major is still quite well regarded. Perhaps Starmer will be too.
Businesses will only do what is strategically in their interest. Universities can be a little more creative.
Scalability is an issue, as is potential demand. I used to have suppliers come to me with new products and new developments and we had no interest. They had not done voice of the customer.
I worked in industry for many years including new product development and new plant/capital to support it.
And you have to sweat assets to get the payback.
Honestly boycotting the World Cup would be the most effective and probably the least disruptive of all of the options available to Europe. I’m not sure how you can send teams and fans to contribute to a spectacle designed entirely to celebrate a guy trying to invade your territory.
Vance may be even more evil than trump, but he is rational AFAIK.
No charisma
Beholden to Trump
They've done very little indeed to shift the dial on the deindustrialisation that's been ongoing since the 80s.
Full Tonto is several orders of magnitude beyond that.
He’s the first actual human being to suffer from the Uncanny Valley effect
We need to distract the GOP into focusing on very stupid, but way less damaging policies like building the border wall and buying Greenland.
https://x.com/electionsjoe/status/1854678864695349724
We’ve been happy to offshore manufacturing and let it go really for most of my life.
The Americans are really excited about the World Cup. I just did a World Cup road trip to 3 different hosting cities - LA, SF, Seattle. It’s a big deal, commercially, culturally, socially. Trump is cosy with FIFA, he wants a grand spectacle, etc
If all the European teams pulled out that would totally ruin the tournament, lose lots of money for lots of people, and be a real slap in the face for Trump
Bit tough on Mexico and Canada, but if Europe REALLY wants to hurt Trump and demonstrate some soft power, this is it. There is nothing else as potent
https://x.com/Defence_Index/status/2013104910708195334
Obvious shared interest with Europe.
You’d spend hours manipulating a geriatric todger for nothing ? On the plus side you wouldn’t have to perform the oral pleasuring, I guess, so that would be a load off your mind, unless you like that sort of thing.
Thank fuck he lost his job.
But it is. To threaten another NATO member with an invasion is completely and utterly unacceptable. NATO has been staggering for a while. This is a knock out blow and a leader being honest with us would have to admit that rather than wishing it were not so. Starmer did not do that this morning. He no doubt thought that this was not in our interests. I respect his position but I also respectfully disagree.
We need to disengage from the US. We don't need to shout to the rooftops about it, we don't need to make a fuss and we don't need to do it all tomorrow. But we do need to get on with it. The terms of engagement have changed. Uncomfortable, unfortunate, expensive but necessary. We simply cannot assume that Trump is 4 years of madness and then things go back to normal. He has far too much support for that.
WATO is a million times better with Stourton than it is with the useless Montague or Dimond.
In cement kilns, the combustion ash is already mixed with the limestone and therefore goes into the cement clinker automatically. They can burn practically any old shite in cement kilns. If some of that fuel is biogenic in origin, it cuts down on CO2 emissions, and with CCS, you could in theory get carbon-negative cement.
* Another Brexit bonus.
The municipal waste to energy facilities I deal with tend to landfill bottom ash complete with metal content. Even with higher rate landfill tax it is generally a cheaper option.
It would be a commercially devastating boycott. No one would fucking care worldwide. No Mbappe, no Bellingham, no Dembele, no Kane, no Yamal, no Saka. No England, France, Spain, Germany
Worst World Cup EVAH. It would genuinely hurt
But the Europeans haven’t got the cullions to do it. I’d love if it if they did, if only to fuck off FIFA as WELL as Trump, two birds, one stone
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2012898103351771355
WELKER: Is Greenland or NATO more essential to US national security?
BESSENT: That's obviously a false choice
WELKER: Not from the perspective of European leaders
BESSENT: European leaders will come around and understand they need to be under the US security umbrella. What would happen in Ukraine if the US pulled its support out? The whole thing would collapse.
That’s why I said LET’S TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS
I felt the PB chat was getting a bit bogged down in arcane and boring stuff, and now here we are, as a result of my BOTTOMS intervention, gassing away happily about cement clinkers and limestone ash combustion
But as most of them are American, its not going to happen