Another helpful intervention erm... "Ed Miliband needs to “turn up the volume” and prove that he, not the trade unions, runs the Labour Party, a former Cabinet minister has warned. Jack Straw, who was Foreign Secretary under Tony Blair, made the plea...... " http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3845423.ece
So, he is really going to turn on the main providors of 8 out of 10 pounds that come into his outfit from the very people that held the casting vote in the selection process that appointed him? Surely shome mishtake. It is just like Ratner insulting the customers who were buying his 9 carat necklasses ....... (What Ratner actually did that?)
Gerald. To be fair he was being absolutely honest in the context of an investor meeting. He was asked how Ratners could sell "diamond" earings for 99p and he replied that they were "crap". The rest, as they say, was history...
Gerald told his customers you have bought cr*p and Ed is telling the Unions the same.
Lets see if for once Cammo has some balls and intervenes in the anti-fracking protests and tells the law to clear the areas of protest. All last week Cammo said "I support Fracking", and, "Fracking is our future".
My son and I joke a lot about it but there is a perfectly plausible rationale for biodynamic production methods.
For a start, they eschew artificial inputs. Nor is the emphasis on the right phases of the seasons entirely daft, if it is not taken too far. They also use only the purest products. (I once asked my lad if they really moistened the soil with virgins' blood and he said 'Yes if we can get it but virgins not easy to find in Sussex." Not lacking in self-deprecating humour, these biodynamic types.)
Biodynamic wine is a bit pricy, but that is an indication that it is highly regarded. Having sampled a fair bit, I can understand why. It not only tastes pretty good but it never gives me a hangover. This is a serious factor with me because I suffer so much after drinking normal alcoholic beverages that I've become almost teetotal these days - unless of course I can lay my hands on the bio-d grog.
If it works, why question it?
It's a little bit pretentious to systematise what is basically a reversion to traditional techniques of winemaking.
Jacques Seyesses was one of the pioneers of this approach - but still calls it organic farming. The wine is absolutely fantastic though - some of my favorite. :-)
Lets see if for once Cammo has some balls and intervenes in the anti-fracking protests and tells the law to clear the areas of protest. All last week Cammo said "I support Fracking", and, "Fracking is our future". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23662583
The companies that want fracking have the worst PR operation of any industry outside of banking. Truly incompetent.
his attack on the way the party handled Falkirk means that it will struggle to do anything other than publish the report into what happened in that selection. The stakes appear to be very high indeed: the report is being kept under lock and key by the party to the extent that Unite officials had to read it in a special room but were not allowed to take copies away with them. But the longer that report remains locked in its special room, the longer this row will persist.
Biodynamic wine is a bit pricy, but that is an indication that it is highly regarded. Having sampled a fair bit, I can understand why. It not only tastes pretty good but it never gives me a hangover. This is a serious factor with me because I suffer so much after drinking normal alcoholic beverages that I've become almost teetotal these days - unless of course I can lay my hands on the bio-d grog.
If it works, why question it?
This sounds like stem cell burgers - what on Earth is it?
Lets see if for once Cammo has some balls and intervenes in the anti-fracking protests and tells the law to clear the areas of protest. All last week Cammo said "I support Fracking", and, "Fracking is our future".
More Good News For Labour courtesy of the MD of Ipsos MORI. "Our poll this week for the Evening Standard showed that 63% of the public don’t like Ed Miliband. It is a headline writer's dream in a difficult week for Miliband – but focusing on this finding misses the really important points from the poll........... If we see leaders as an electoral asset to attract voters from other parties, David Cameron comes out much stronger: he is liked by nearly twice as many non-Conservative voters (33%) than Miliband is liked by non-Labour voters (18%). Comparisons with Cameron in opposition are not good either: two years out, only 36% said they didn’t like Cameron, some 27 percentage points lower than Miliband’s current level of dislike. .... Miliband as ... leader of the opposition, ..gets his lowest ever rating in this latest poll ...exactly the same level as William Hague was at this point in his leadership .... satisfaction with Miliband is lower, not higher, than average among public sector workers ....." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/biggest-problem-labour-people-dont-know-what-it-stands
Plato, have a heart and please slow down on all this good news for Labour, one can hardly absorb all this sunshine that is being spread about. Unite may start to worry about what sort of leader their money brought to power?
Biodynamic wine is a bit pricy, but that is an indication that it is highly regarded. Having sampled a fair bit, I can understand why. It not only tastes pretty good but it never gives me a hangover. This is a serious factor with me because I suffer so much after drinking normal alcoholic beverages that I've become almost teetotal these days - unless of course I can lay my hands on the bio-d grog.
If it works, why question it?
This sounds like stem cell burgers - what on Earth is it?
Basically organic, traditionally made wine.
They crush the grapes with the stems on, they don't filter before bottling and they don't blacksnake. I think those are the main points. It makes the wines more variable, season to season, but IMV improves the flavour (for the good years)
his attack on the way the party handled Falkirk means that it will struggle to do anything other than publish the report into what happened in that selection. The stakes appear to be very high indeed: the report is being kept under lock and key by the party to the extent that Unite officials had to read it in a special room but were not allowed to take copies away with them. But the longer that report remains locked in its special room, the longer this row will persist.
Biodynamic wine is a bit pricy, but that is an indication that it is highly regarded. Having sampled a fair bit, I can understand why. It not only tastes pretty good but it never gives me a hangover. This is a serious factor with me because I suffer so much after drinking normal alcoholic beverages that I've become almost teetotal these days - unless of course I can lay my hands on the bio-d grog.
If it works, why question it?
This sounds like stem cell burgers - what on Earth is it?
Basically organic, traditionally made wine.
They crush the grapes with the stems on, they don't filter before bottling and they don't blacksnake. I think those are the main points. It makes the wines more variable, season to season, but IMV improves the flavour (for the good years)
Ah, I thought that's how everyone made homemade plonk. I've a few wine club friends who use nothing but sugar and stuff from their garden to make gallons of it.
Biodynamic wine is a bit pricy, but that is an indication that it is highly regarded. Having sampled a fair bit, I can understand why. It not only tastes pretty good but it never gives me a hangover. This is a serious factor with me because I suffer so much after drinking normal alcoholic beverages that I've become almost teetotal these days - unless of course I can lay my hands on the bio-d grog.
If it works, why question it?
This sounds like stem cell burgers - what on Earth is it?
Basically organic, traditionally made wine.
They crush the grapes with the stems on, they don't filter before bottling and they don't blacksnake. I think those are the main points. It makes the wines more variable, season to season, but IMV improves the flavour (for the good years)
Millionaire EdM represents a snobbish bien pensant strand of Labourism that is out of touch with the country and has repeatedly left the people out of pocket.
This is like shooting Labour in a barrel - I do wish they'd pull their fingers out as it'll get really dull shortly.
This week has been great for the Silly Season stuff, but the other more serious stories look like navel gazing. Labour Press Office resorted to tweeting LOOK LOOK WE HAVE SOMEONE ON TV NOW!!
I felt honour-bound to point out how desperate that looked.
Sussex Police @sussex_police @aDissentient Trespass on private land is a civil offence, it only becomes a criminal offence if it is aggravated trespass.
You do realise that despite your shooting fish in a barrel nonsense we will beat you (and you are a tory so don't run away from it) at the next election. If you read threads on PB you were all up for thinking Cameron would win 100 plus majorities.
So its not disloyal - just being helpful. Right. Got it.
"As George Eaton has noted over at the New Statesman though, it won’t be Watson’s well known views on Falkirk that are problematic for Miliband, it’s his call for an EU referendum. It’s also his position on the economy, where he feels Labour – meaning his two friends Miliband and Balls – need to be bolder.
What Watson is saying is symptomatic of how many Labour MPs feel about the lack of messages and clarity coming from the leadership, which feeds a sense of drift in the party. But it’s not disloyal to point that out per se. Labour does need a better answer on the EU referendum (my preference is for a vote on General Election day) and Labour does need a better answer on how the economy can grow better and share the proceeds of growth fairly.
Lets see if for once Cammo has some balls and intervenes in the anti-fracking protests and tells the law to clear the areas of protest. All last week Cammo said "I support Fracking", and, "Fracking is our future".
" ...But “Pay £20 and be asked to deliver leaflets”: this is our offer? In 2013, when every day we heave a clutch of unwanted paper from under our letterboxes to our recycle bins, without once glancing at their contents? To imagine that leaflets are politically effective must be close to a definition of “bewildered”. To then hope that hundreds of adults will be found to do this, in every constituency, takes us closer to “delusional”. Lib Dems believe otherwise, but I find leaflets with photos of people pointing at cracks in the road, simulating outrage, to be sad, not politically compelling.
So change what it means to be a member. Become a registered Conservative supporter for a pound. Organise town halls to argue (about those cracks in the road) with the people in charge of them. All supporters should choose the shortlist for those who want to be elected as Conservatives; then everyone in their boroughs should be invited to take part in the final primary selection. And give all registered Tories a direct vote for the party chairman. One member-derived Tory sitting in shadow or real cabinet would be useful (and provide another strong reason to join). Oh, and of course: move conference back to the seaside, ban lobbyists from attending, and debate member-inspired motions. I don’t care if it would look shabby. It would also look like fun.
Biodynamic wine is a bit pricy, but that is an indication that it is highly regarded. Having sampled a fair bit, I can understand why. It not only tastes pretty good but it never gives me a hangover. This is a serious factor with me because I suffer so much after drinking normal alcoholic beverages that I've become almost teetotal these days - unless of course I can lay my hands on the bio-d grog.
If it works, why question it?
This sounds like stem cell burgers - what on Earth is it?
Basically organic, traditionally made wine.
They crush the grapes with the stems on, they don't filter before bottling and they don't blacksnake. I think those are the main points. It makes the wines more variable, season to season, but IMV improves the flavour (for the good years)
Ah, I thought that's how everyone made homemade plonk. I've a few wine club friends who use nothing but sugar and stuff from their garden to make gallons of it.
Sugar is a terrible sin in the world of biodynamics...
Lets see if for once Cammo has some balls and intervenes in the anti-fracking protests and tells the law to clear the areas of protest. All last week Cammo said "I support Fracking", and, "Fracking is our future".
Lets see if for once Cammo has some balls and intervenes in the anti-fracking protests and tells the law to clear the areas of protest. All last week Cammo said "I support Fracking", and, "Fracking is our future".
As a rule, I'm not a fan of politicians taking direct control of the police and instructing them to beat up British citizens.
Best leave tactical decisions to the local police chief, eh?
NO!
Ok, so you are a fan of politicians taking direct control of the police and instructing them to beat up British citizens?
Now we're getting somewhere...
This is a false argument. There are certain cases where the law has to intervene to prevent chaos and mayhem. The fact in this case is that the local police chief has succumbed to the pressure of these protesters and not upheld his duties. In other words a weak Chief Constable, of which we have many in today's Britain.
I have no wish to see police "beat up British citizens", but neither do I want to see protesters worked up by fanatics - and there are quite a few - attack a legal business doing it's work: and this is what may happen as the demonstration takes hold.
People mentioning "biodynamic" here seem to be quietly ignoring the thing that makes it different to "organic" is a whole load of spritual hocus-pocus to do with what can best be described at medieval "magic" preparations, e.g. preparing the earth with "Crushed powdered quartz prepared by stuffing it into a horn of a cow and buried into the ground in spring and taken out in autumn."
This is a false argument. There are certain cases where the law has to intervene to prevent chaos and mayhem. The fact in this case is that the local police chief has succumbed to the pressure of these protesters and not upheld his duties. In other words a weak Chief Constable, of which we have many in today's Britain.
I have no wish to see police "beat up British citizens", but neither do I want to see protesters worked up by fanatics - and there are quite a few - attack a legal business doing it's work: and this is what may happen as the demonstration takes hold.
It's absolutely not a false argument - and is absolutely fundamental to the protection of our liberties.
Allowing a politician to intervene in a tactical decision is very dangerous, especially where it is a matter of public order.
As it happens, I don't disagree with your summary of the situation - and have my doubts about the police decision - but this is not one for Cameron.
The [criminal] offence of aggravated trespass is committed when a person trespasses on land when a lawful activity is taking place on that land or land nearby and he or she does anything intending to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt that activity.
Lets see if for once Cammo has some balls and intervenes in the anti-fracking protests and tells the law to clear the areas of protest. All last week Cammo said "I support Fracking", and, "Fracking is our future".
Very rare for the police to intervene int he case of mere trespass for the purpose of protest - although I'm not quite clear on what the campers are doing.
Lets see if for once Cammo has some balls and intervenes in the anti-fracking protests and tells the law to clear the areas of protest. All last week Cammo said "I support Fracking", and, "Fracking is our future".
Sussex Police has rebutted accusations that it has allowed protesters to bring oil-drilling at Balcombe to a halt as up a thousand extra people have gathered for a climate camp near the site at the weekend.
Superintendent Lawrence Hobbs said: "Right from the outset, we have been absolutely clear that our priority in this operation is safety - for the general public, for protesters, for Cuadrilla employees and for own officers and staff.
"Over the last three weeks our approach has been quite clear in that we will not tolerate any criminal behaviour and by Friday there had been 45 arrests in connection with the protests, with 33 people being charged with a range of offences.
"This morning (Saturday) we arrested a man in connection with threats made to a local landowner who asked a group encamped on land very close to the drilling site to leave. I should like to make it absolutely clear that while we are in full support of Cuadrilla's decision to scale back their activities during this period, it was their decision, which took into account Sussex Police's assessment of the likely impact of the extra protesters.
"For the last three weeks we have worked with all sides in a difficult balancing act to enable them all to meet their peaceful and lawful objectives, whether they be day-to-day commercial activities or protest. Cuadrilla's decision is a sensible one and we anticipate that in the next few days they will be in a position to resume their full operation and we will continue to police the situation fairly to ensure the safety of everyone involved."
A 23-year-old man, arrested on suspicion of a Section 4 public order offence was in custody on Saturday (August 17).
People mentioning "biodynamic" here seem to be quietly ignoring the thing that makes it different to "organic" is a whole load of spritual hocus-pocus to do with what can best be described at medieval "magic" preparations, e.g. preparing the earth with "Crushed powdered quartz prepared by stuffing it into a horn of a cow and buried into the ground in spring and taken out in autumn."
The Times and The Sun have spent many millions of pounds buying internet clip rights for the Premier league.
I am a Times subscriber - guess what - none of it can be accessed.
I've just spent 20 mins on the phone to a very helpful, intelligent girl. Conclusion: There are compatibility issues with Internet Explorer. try another browser.
Well I think it's an absolute disgrace. All the rest of the website works - why spend millions and millions of pounds on something and then make it so it doesn't work EASILY.
Every video on the BBC website works perfectly with no hassle - why can't The Times manage the same?
Email their head of digital - I can't recall his name but you can find him on Twitter. Or you could email this helpful chap who worked on their comments section - Philip Webster is IIRC in charge of Times Online.
The Times and The Sun have spent many millions of pounds buying internet clip rights for the Premier league.
I am a Times subscriber - guess what - none of it can be accessed.
I've just spent 20 mins on the phone to a very helpful, intelligent girl. Conclusion: There are compatibility issues with Internet Explorer. try another browser.
Well I think it's an absolute disgrace. All the rest of the website works - why spend millions and millions of pounds on something and then make it so it doesn't work EASILY.
Every video on the BBC website works perfectly with no hassle - why can't The Times manage the same?
Labour would impose rent controls ‘without hesitation’ if it won the next election, its housing spokesman Jack Dromey has been secretly recorded saying.
His admission came eight days after Labour’s biggest paymaster the Unite union called for the party to adopt controls on what private landlords can charge.
It brought claims that Unite, where Mr Dromey was deputy general secretary until 2010, has ‘bought’ Labour policy.
Labour would impose rent controls ‘without hesitation’ if it won the next election, its housing spokesman Jack Dromey has been secretly recorded saying.
His admission came eight days after Labour’s biggest paymaster the Unite union called for the party to adopt controls on what private landlords can charge.
It brought claims that Unite, where Mr Dromey was deputy general secretary until 2010, has ‘bought’ Labour policy.
Labour would impose rent controls ‘without hesitation’ if it won the next election, its housing spokesman Jack Dromey has been secretly recorded saying.
It took the country a quarter of a century to recover from the damage done last time they did that.
Plato - Interesting family the Kelsey-Fry's, they come from Bromley where my parents grew up and are close friends of my sister's godmother, herself from a minor Italian noble family. John Kelsey-Fry does libel work as well as criminal
The local playing field in my area is hosting a Thai cultural festival today and tomorrow. Just visited it and there must have been a few thousand Thai people there.
Anne Patricia @poppy2324 Fracking, apparently, produces as much energy on 4 hectares as the entire British Wind industry, just what are we waiting for?
Email their head of digital - I can't recall his name but you can find him on Twitter. Or you could email this helpful chap who worked on their comments section - Philip Webster is IIRC in charge of Times Online.
Anne Patricia @poppy2324 Fracking, apparently, produces as much energy on 4 hectares as the entire British Wind industry, just what are we waiting for?
The word "apparently" could be a bit dangerous here.
Well if they bring in rent controls they'll have to bring in security of tenure as well.
If it's done overnight and existing contracts are ruled unlawful it'll be great for any existing tenants.
But anyone who wants a new tenancy will find that there are literally none available. Nobody in their right mind is going to agree to having their property confiscated.
Anne Patricia @poppy2324 Fracking, apparently, produces as much energy on 4 hectares as the entire British Wind industry, just what are we waiting for?
UKIP supporters produce more wind than the entire British Wind Industry . All we have to do is plug them in to the national grid .
Anne Patricia @poppy2324 Fracking, apparently, produces as much energy on 4 hectares as the entire British Wind industry, just what are we waiting for?
UKIP supporters produce more wind than the entire British Wind Industry . All we have to do is plug them in to the national grid .
Nah - too much methane cos they talk right out of their a*******s!
1) The police asking Quadrilla to slow-down their on-site activities during the protest is understandable. The site is temporary amidst trees and relatively open ground, and the machinery is dangerous. Protesters have shut down power stations on many occasions- for instance West Burton last November. And power stations are much more hardened against protest. I'd prefer if Quadrilla could continue operations, but can understand why they've been forced into this.
2) I'm generally in favour of fracking as it stands, but have reservations (perhaps falsely) on one point. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down into the ground, and in the past companies have been hesitant to release what those chemicals are. A prerequisite of any such drilling should be the registration - and careful monitoring - of the chemicals pumped in.
If they are harmless, the companies should be open and say what they are. If they are not harmless, we should know and it should be debated. At the moment, we have a great deal of FUD over the chemicals, and this plays into the protesters' hands.
Matt Ridley is a great read here. Check out his blog for his credentials.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/home - I can't get Vanilla to link so here's his homepage its the first article in top right hand of page called 5 Myths.
"Fourth, the ever-so-neutral BBC in a background briefing this week described fracking as releasing “hundreds of chemicals” into the rock. Out by an order of magnitude, Auntie. Fracking fluid is 99.51% water and sand. In the remaining 0.49% there are just 13 chemicals, all of which can be found in your kitchen, garage or bathroom: citric acid (lemon juice), hydrochloric acid (swimming pools), glutaraldehyde (disinfectant), guar (ice cream), dimethylformamide (plastics), isopropanol (deodorant), borate (hand soap); ammonium persulphate (hair dye); potassium chloride (intravenous drips), sodium carbonate (detergent), ethylene glycol (de-icer), ammonium bisulphite (cosmetics), petroleum distillate (cosmetics)."
1) The police asking Quadrilla to slow-down their on-site activities during the protest is understandable. The site is temporary amidst trees and relatively open ground, and the machinery is dangerous. Protesters have shut down power stations on many occasions- for instance West Burton last November. And power stations are much more hardened against protest. I'd prefer if Quadrilla could continue operations, but can understand why they've been forced into this.
2) I'm generally in favour of fracking as it stands, but have reservations (perhaps falsely) on one point. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down into the ground, and in the past companies have been hesitant to release what those chemicals are. A prerequisite of any such drilling should be the registration - and careful monitoring - of the chemicals pumped in.
If they are harmless, the companies should be open and say what they are. If they are not harmless, we should know and it should be debated. At the moment, we have a great deal of FUD over the chemicals, and this plays into the protesters' hands.
2) I'm generally in favour of fracking as it stands, but have reservations (perhaps falsely) on one point. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down into the ground, and in the past companies have been hesitant to release what those chemicals are. A prerequisite of any such drilling should be the registration - and careful monitoring - of the chemicals pumped in.
I recall someone saying that all the chemicals are listed on a public website (I think governmental or regulatory?). It's the precise formulas that they don't want to reveal because these are commercially sensitive
So its not disloyal - just being helpful. Right. Got it.
"As George Eaton has noted over at the New Statesman though, it won’t be Watson’s well known views on Falkirk that are problematic for Miliband, it’s his call for an EU referendum. It’s also his position on the economy, where he feels Labour – meaning his two friends Miliband and Balls – need to be bolder.
What Watson is saying is symptomatic of how many Labour MPs feel about the lack of messages and clarity coming from the leadership, which feeds a sense of drift in the party. But it’s not disloyal to point that out per se. Labour does need a better answer on the EU referendum (my preference is for a vote on General Election day) and Labour does need a better answer on how the economy can grow better and share the proceeds of growth fairly.
Did you see that Labour does not know the difference between "bear" and "bare"?
"So Tom Watson has given an interview to Decca Aitkenhead (who seems to have a remarkable ability to get Labour politicians to bear their souls) in which he argues that the way the Falkirk farrago has been handled by the party – especially reporting the selection to the police – was “silly”.
I see this mistake daily on bbc or similar internet sites - of course what are we to expect from an education system where English grammar is rarely taught and spelling tests are ruled out as 'unfair' to educationally-challenged and where spellcheck is king.
Can't you move those protesters to the nearest dairy farm?
"Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. "
Can't you move those protesters to the nearest dairy farm?
"Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. "
Matt Ridley is a great read here. Check out his blog for his credentials.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/home - I can't get Vanilla to link so here's his homepage its the first article in top right hand of page called 5 Myths.
"Fourth, the ever-so-neutral BBC in a background briefing this week described fracking as releasing “hundreds of chemicals” into the rock. Out by an order of magnitude, Auntie. Fracking fluid is 99.51% water and sand. In the remaining 0.49% there are just 13 chemicals, all of which can be found in your kitchen, garage or bathroom: citric acid (lemon juice), hydrochloric acid (swimming pools), glutaraldehyde (disinfectant), guar (ice cream), dimethylformamide (plastics), isopropanol (deodorant), borate (hand soap); ammonium persulphate (hair dye); potassium chloride (intravenous drips), sodium carbonate (detergent), ethylene glycol (de-icer), ammonium bisulphite (cosmetics), petroleum distillate (cosmetics)."
1) The police asking Quadrilla to slow-down their on-site activities during the protest is understandable. The site is temporary amidst trees and relatively open ground, and the machinery is dangerous. Protesters have shut down power stations on many occasions- for instance West Burton last November. And power stations are much more hardened against protest. I'd prefer if Quadrilla could continue operations, but can understand why they've been forced into this.
2) I'm generally in favour of fracking as it stands, but have reservations (perhaps falsely) on one point. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down into the ground, and in the past companies have been hesitant to release what those chemicals are. A prerequisite of any such drilling should be the registration - and careful monitoring - of the chemicals pumped in.
If they are harmless, the companies should be open and say what they are. If they are not harmless, we should know and it should be debated. At the moment, we have a great deal of FUD over the chemicals, and this plays into the protesters' hands.
I'm sure he'd be happy to drink a glass given it is so safe.
Matt Ridley is a great read here. Check out his blog for his credentials.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/home - I can't get Vanilla to link so here's his homepage its the first article in top right hand of page called 5 Myths.
"Fourth, the ever-so-neutral BBC in a background briefing this week described fracking as releasing “hundreds of chemicals” into the rock. Out by an order of magnitude, Auntie. Fracking fluid is 99.51% water and sand. In the remaining 0.49% there are just 13 chemicals, all of which can be found in your kitchen, garage or bathroom: citric acid (lemon juice), hydrochloric acid (swimming pools), glutaraldehyde (disinfectant), guar (ice cream), dimethylformamide (plastics), isopropanol (deodorant), borate (hand soap); ammonium persulphate (hair dye); potassium chloride (intravenous drips), sodium carbonate (detergent), ethylene glycol (de-icer), ammonium bisulphite (cosmetics), petroleum distillate (cosmetics)."
1) The police asking Quadrilla to slow-down their on-site activities during the protest is understandable. The site is temporary amidst trees and relatively open ground, and the machinery is dangerous. Protesters have shut down power stations on many occasions- for instance West Burton last November. And power stations are much more hardened against protest. I'd prefer if Quadrilla could continue operations, but can understand why they've been forced into this.
2) I'm generally in favour of fracking as it stands, but have reservations (perhaps falsely) on one point. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down into the ground, and in the past companies have been hesitant to release what those chemicals are. A prerequisite of any such drilling should be the registration - and careful monitoring - of the chemicals pumped in.
If they are harmless, the companies should be open and say what they are. If they are not harmless, we should know and it should be debated. At the moment, we have a great deal of FUD over the chemicals, and this plays into the protesters' hands.
I'm sure he'd be happy to drink a glass given it is so safe.
And do you know what is in your tap water? Strikes me that you're ideologically opposed to it no matter what. How do you feel about coal mining?
Re our conversations yesterday about the existence of gods can I just same I am reviewing my position re RVP, and I have definite evidence that he exists.
I fear that we are in for a re-run of the anti-GM food lunacies which could delay things for years
Being more reliant on domestic energy resources must be a key goal and impact on everybody's prosperity.
Completely agree with this. We cannot delay this to ameliorate these luddites no matter how much time the BBC want to give them.
Re some of the earlier comments the reason shale in the US is not having much of an international effect is the lack of LPG facilities and the lack of an incentive given domestic demand. We have LPG facilities but they are designed for import not export. If we want to make things in this country we need to get on with this and these prats need to be ignored.
2) I'm generally in favour of fracking as it stands, but have reservations (perhaps falsely) on one point. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down into the ground, and in the past companies have been hesitant to release what those chemicals are. A prerequisite of any such drilling should be the registration - and careful monitoring - of the chemicals pumped in.
I recall someone saying that all the chemicals are listed on a public website (I think governmental or regulatory?). It's the precise formulas that they don't want to reveal because these are commercially sensitive
Thanks to both you and Charles for your reply.
However: I'm not sure I trust the companies fully on this. The 'commercially sensitive' shtick is poor: a chemical plant would not be allowed to releases chemicals into a water supply without saying exactly what they are. And whilst the drilling should occur well below the water-supply aquifers, there may be problems and migration.
Note that the chemicals listed are just "main compounds"
I am not saying that there are no problems with the chemicals used; just that we should know. This lack of information just plays into the protesters' hands. An example: some of the more hysterical campaigners claim that radioactive substances are being pumped down ('buried') as well as (rightly) pumped out (in the form of Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials - NORMs).
Jonathan: I fear that you, like many people, are unaware of exactly what tap water is, and the chemicals that can be found as standard in it. Quality and mineralisation varies from area to area. Given some of the water I've drunk when I've been wild camping, I'd happily drink any water coming out of these areas after fracking. But more openness from the companies would be welcome.
"It has been reported that new intelligence claimed the Princess was killed by a member of the British military, but Scotland Yard refused to give any more details about its nature.
The information is also believed to have been passed to the Met by the Royal Military Police, after being raised by the parents-in-law of a former soldier. The new dossier is said to include a reference to the Special Air Service, or SAS.
If material has indeed been uncovered by another police force it could lead to it being attached more weight than numerous other conspiracy theories, which were rejected by an inquest in 2008."
I fear that we are in for a re-run of the anti-GM food lunacies which could delay things for years
Being more reliant on domestic energy resources must be a key goal and impact on everybody's prosperity.
Completely agree with this. We cannot delay this to ameliorate these luddites no matter how much time the BBC want to give them.
Re some of the earlier comments the reason shale in the US is not having much of an international effect is the lack of LPG facilities and the lack of an incentive given domestic demand. We have LPG facilities but they are designed for import not export. If we want to make things in this country we need to get on with this and these prats need to be ignored.
Thanks. I don't think I've ever had a lead piece stay on topic so long!
2) I'm generally in favour of fracking as it stands, but have reservations (perhaps falsely) on one point. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down into the ground, and in the past companies have been hesitant to release what those chemicals are. A prerequisite of any such drilling should be the registration - and careful monitoring - of the chemicals pumped in.
I recall someone saying that all the chemicals are listed on a public website (I think governmental or regulatory?). It's the precise formulas that they don't want to reveal because these are commercially sensitive
Note that the chemicals listed are just "main compounds"
I am not saying that there are no problems with the chemicals used; just that we should know. This lack of information just plays into the protesters' hands. An example: some of the more hysterical campaigners claim that radioactive substances are being pumped down ('buried') as well as (rightly) pumped out (in the form of Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials - NORMs).
Jonathan: I fear that you, like many people, are unaware of exactly what tap water is, and the chemicals that can be found as standard in it. Quality and mineralisation varies from area to area. Given some of the water I've drunk when I've been wild camping, I'd happily drink any water coming out of these areas after fracking. But more openness from the companies would be welcome.
I think you're doing a Cameron there - the tree-huggers don't care about the facts, they'll make up any old nonsense to support their scaremongering. It's like Tories trying to reassure Guardian readers - who will never want to believe any facts at all.
They've lost half their readership in the last 10 years so let's hope so and with a bit of luck the daft publication will cease trading entirely. It's already the lowest circulating of the main tabloids so Diana / Weather / Houseprices / Maddie don't seem to be doing the trick.
2) I'm generally in favour of fracking as it stands, but have reservations (perhaps falsely) on one point. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down into the ground, and in the past companies have been hesitant to release what those chemicals are. A prerequisite of any such drilling should be the registration - and careful monitoring - of the chemicals pumped in.
I recall someone saying that all the chemicals are listed on a public website (I think governmental or regulatory?). It's the precise formulas that they don't want to reveal because these are commercially sensitive
Thanks to both you and Charles for your reply.
However: I'm not sure I trust the companies fully on this. The 'commercially sensitive' shtick is poor: a chemical plant would not be allowed to releases chemicals into a water supply without saying exactly what they are. And whilst the drilling should occur well below the water-supply aquifers, there may be problems and migration.
Note that the chemicals listed are just "main compounds"
I am not saying that there are no problems with the chemicals used; just that we should know. This lack of information just plays into the protesters' hands. An example: some of the more hysterical campaigners claim that radioactive substances are being pumped down ('buried') as well as (rightly) pumped out (in the form of Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials - NORMs).
Jonathan: I fear that you, like many people, are unaware of exactly what tap water is, and the chemicals that can be found as standard in it. Quality and mineralisation varies from area to area. Given some of the water I've drunk when I've been wild camping, I'd happily drink any water coming out of these areas after fracking. But more openness from the companies would be welcome.
If you have a sufficiently sensitive machine you will find that your drinking water contains something from every element in the periodic table. Fortunately the levels are so low as to be harmless.
I'm reluctantly responding to SeanT and the zombie parasite or whatever it's called. He probably won't see this being out of timezone in some exotic location, which is indeed where I'm headed on Wednesday. It's fun being a writer.
Could write a lot more but I guess I'm weary of the topic having abandoned faith in the face of suffering and evil.
The error is in the second assertion, that of omni-benevolence. The notion of God as a kind of celestial welfare state is a curious one and certainly not one the ancients (including, for that matter, the Old Testament), would have had much truck with.
No but most Christians seem intent on the idea that God is good enough to care and intervene in this world of ours. Indeed, many evangelicals seem to think He has enough time, energy and love to find them a car parking space in a busy city, but not to save 6 million Jews from burning in the gas chambers. Really, what's the point of praying at all to a God that fickle?
My point would be a subtle one. If God exists I turn my back on him because he has no right to be called 'God'. He is not God, since, to parody Anselm, I can conceive of a being more loving and therefore more worthy to be God. It's a theodicy of protest. God might exist, but he is not ... God.
OK OK, so there's one possible 'out' for me, and it lies in the notion of divine rupture, of a God who, pace the scholastics, is God precisely because he can suffer, supremely so in his son on the cross. There is no other place a Christian should go in the face of suffering except to shut the f*ck up in the face of human suffering and listen to the divine Son who screams 'my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'
Can't you move those protesters to the nearest dairy farm?
"Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. "
Can't you move those protesters to the nearest dairy farm?
"Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. "
No but most Christians seem intent on the idea that God is good enough to care and intervene in this world of ours. Indeed, many evangelicals seem to think He has enough time, energy and love to find them a car parking space in a busy city, but not to save 6 million Jews from burning in the gas chambers. Really, what's the point of praying at all to a God that fickle?
My point would be a subtle one. If God exists I turn my back on him because he has no right to be called 'God'. He is not God, since, to parody Anselm, I can conceive of a being more loving and therefore more worthy to be God. It's a theodicy of protest. God might exist, but he is not ... God.
OK OK, so there's one possible 'out' for me, and it lies in the notion of divine rupture, of a God who, pace the scholastics, is God precisely because he can suffer, supremely so in his son on the cross. There is no other place a Christian should go in the face of suffering except to shut the f*ck up in the face of human suffering and listen to the divine Son who screams 'my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'
Most Christians don't actually *believe* that He helps with a parking space - it's like kissing the dice or asking Angel Edna for help.
As for why God allows suffering, there was a very good novel written a few years ago - The Shack - that addresses that very question (it's not an easy book - brutally disturbing in places)
Can't you move those protesters to the nearest dairy farm?
"Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. "
2) I'm generally in favour of fracking as it stands, but have reservations (perhaps falsely) on one point. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down into the ground, and in the past companies have been hesitant to release what those chemicals are. A prerequisite of any such drilling should be the registration - and careful monitoring - of the chemicals pumped in.
I recall someone saying that all the chemicals are listed on a public website (I think governmental or regulatory?). It's the precise formulas that they don't want to reveal because these are commercially sensitive
Thanks to both you and Charles for your reply.
However: I'm not sure I trust the companies fully on this. The 'commercially sensitive' shtick is poor: a chemical plant would not be allowed to releases chemicals into a water supply without saying exactly what they are. And whilst the drilling should occur well below the water-supply aquifers, there may be problems and migration.
Note that the chemicals listed are just "main compounds"
I am not saying that there are no problems with the chemicals used; just that we should know. This lack of information just plays into the protesters' hands. An example: some of the more hysterical campaigners claim that radioactive substances are being pumped down ('buried') as well as (rightly) pumped out (in the form of Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials - NORMs).
Jonathan: I fear that you, like many people, are unaware of exactly what tap water is, and the chemicals that can be found as standard in it. Quality and mineralisation varies from area to area. Given some of the water I've drunk when I've been wild camping, I'd happily drink any water coming out of these areas after fracking. But more openness from the companies would be welcome.
If you have a sufficiently sensitive machine you will find that your drinking water contains something from every element in the periodic table. Fortunately the levels are so low as to be harmless.
Can't you move those protesters to the nearest dairy farm?
"Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. "
I recall someone saying that all the chemicals are listed on a public website (I think governmental or regulatory?). It's the precise formulas that they don't want to reveal because these are commercially sensitive
Thanks to both you and Charles for your reply.
(snippety snip)
If you have a sufficiently sensitive machine you will find that your drinking water contains something from every element in the periodic table. Fortunately the levels are so low as to be harmless.
Undoubtedly, and the chemical analysis is why I think it's important to know what's being pumped in (and why it's in the company's interests long-term).
I used to be kind-of involved in a remote way to a large chemical plant. Water samples were taken from the river downstream of the plant every hour, and samples were tested daily (the hourly ones were used as backups for the daily ones, and helped see when the changes occurred). Changes in the chemical composition of the water had to be explained. This task was made harder by the fact the water company itself has a sewage works a short distance upstream, and blame for some chemicals rebounded between the two. (*)
To aid their case, the chemical plant kept fish in the outlet culverts. If the fish were still alive, it was hard to blame them for fish dying in the river.
Say in five years after fracking, it is noted that ground- or aquifer- water is being polluted with chemical X. The secrecy means that the companies will be liable to claims that they put chemical X into the water, when the source could be from anything. It would be much easier for them to refute if they could prove that none of chemical X ever went into the supply. The secrecy will work against them in any court case.
Note: none of this means I am against fracking, or saying it should not go ahead. It's just something I would like to see sorted before it's done on a large scale.
(*) As a result of this, I became intimately knowledgeable of the workings of massive Dorr-Oliver settlement tanks. But that's far too geeky, even for PB...
No but most Christians seem intent on the idea that God is good enough to care and intervene in this world of ours. Indeed, many evangelicals seem to think He has enough time, energy and love to find them a car parking space in a busy city, but not to save 6 million Jews from burning in the gas chambers. Really, what's the point of praying at all to a God that fickle?
My point would be a subtle one. If God exists I turn my back on him because he has no right to be called 'God'. He is not God, since, to parody Anselm, I can conceive of a being more loving and therefore more worthy to be God. It's a theodicy of protest. God might exist, but he is not ... God.
...
Just because evangelicals believe it doesn't make it true. If there is a god, and he is that fickle, I suspect He'd be amused at being credited with the empty parking space the motorist finds, which is simply down to chance or a quiet day or whatever.
I'm still not convinced by the argument that God doesn't exist because bad things happen (or, alternatively, because the deaths of billions of innocents of the millennia proves He is unloving. That would be to judge God by human morality. Actually, I'm not sold on the idea of god/s at all but if they do exist, I'm sure they operate a wholly different philosophy to the Western liberal consensus.
If I were to believe in gods, it would be on the basis that they intervene in the physical world as and when it pleases them, and for their own amusement. The pre-Christian (and certainly pre-20th century) concept of religion seems to fit far better with the evidence of nature and human history than the alternatives.
If you have a sufficiently sensitive machine you will find that your drinking water contains something from every element in the periodic table. Fortunately the levels are so low as to be harmless.
Yes, but the ratio is quite important. Takes us back to that old old joke:
Two scientists walk into a bar. The first scientist says, "I'll have some H2O." and drinks it. The second scientist says, "I'll have H2O too" and dies.
If you have a sufficiently sensitive machine you will find that your drinking water contains something from every element in the periodic table. Fortunately the levels are so low as to be harmless.
Yes, but the ratio is quite important. Takes us back to that old old joke:
Two scientists walk into a bar. The first scientist says, "I'll have some H2O." and drinks it. The second scientist says, "I'll have H2O too" and dies.
Boom boom!!
Trouble is, too many people "dropped" science at school in favour of something else, maybe easier.
The grammar school I attended in the 50's gave us a choice in the IVth form onward. No-one in my time ever changed horses! Chemistry, Physics and Biology or History, Geography and Latin. That's all three Sciences or all three "Arts". As I was on the Science side I never studied history etc. beyond the Glorious Revolution. Have had to do a lot of reading to catch up!
No but most Christians seem intent on the idea that God is good enough to care and intervene in this world of ours. Indeed, many evangelicals seem to think He has enough time, energy and love to find them a car parking space in a busy city, but not to save 6 million Jews from burning in the gas chambers. Really, what's the point of praying at all to a God that fickle?
My point would be a subtle one. If God exists I turn my back on him because he has no right to be called 'God'. He is not God, since, to parody Anselm, I can conceive of a being more loving and therefore more worthy to be God. It's a theodicy of protest. God might exist, but he is not ... God.
OK OK, so there's one possible 'out' for me, and it lies in the notion of divine rupture, of a God who, pace the scholastics, is God precisely because he can suffer, supremely so in his son on the cross. There is no other place a Christian should go in the face of suffering except to shut the f*ck up in the face of human suffering and listen to the divine Son who screams 'my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'
Most Christians don't actually *believe* that He helps with a parking space - it's like kissing the dice or asking Angel Edna for help.
As for why God allows suffering, there was a very good novel written a few years ago - The Shack - that addresses that very question (it's not an easy book - brutally disturbing in places)
Sorry but that's rubbish. They do believe he intervenes and many many evangelicals think God answers prayers. I've spent a lifetime with the Church and, indeed, a lifetime teaching and writing on the problem of suffering and religion ... and like SeanT have even managed to be a bestselling author.
We need to distinguish here between the Christian God to whom you are referring and the Deus ex Machina of David Herdson.
It's clearly time for Cameron to get going on the PR offensive (like he did with his tiny windmill) and start fracking in his own backyard as an inspiring example to all the NIMBY tory MPs worrying about their grassroots in their own backyard.
The PB tories surely don't forget what a roaring success Cammie's tiny windmill was already?
Up on the roof...Cameron's wind turbine arrives
It is possibly the most talked-about home improvement project of recent years.
And today the controversial wind turbine designed for David Cameron's London home was finally erected.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23662583
Jacques Seyesses was one of the pioneers of this approach - but still calls it organic farming. The wine is absolutely fantastic though - some of my favorite. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domaine_Dujac
Ed is swift and decisive. The report will clearly be published, er, maybe, er, never...
Best leave tactical decisions to the local police chief, eh?
They crush the grapes with the stems on, they don't filter before bottling and they don't blacksnake. I think those are the main points. It makes the wines more variable, season to season, but IMV improves the flavour (for the good years)
Oh, wait...
Louise Mensch was a celebrity, not to mention being something of a looker, which probably positively impacted on her support in 2010.
Ed is swift and decisive. The report will clearly be published, er, maybe, er, never...
Wot? A FYEO report? Is this James Bond?
shesh.
Oh, wait...
This is like shooting Labour in a barrel - I do wish they'd pull their fingers out as it'll get really dull shortly.
This week has been great for the Silly Season stuff, but the other more serious stories look like navel gazing. Labour Press Office resorted to tweeting LOOK LOOK WE HAVE SOMEONE ON TV NOW!!
I felt honour-bound to point out how desperate that looked.
Sussex Police @sussex_police
@aDissentient Trespass on private land is a civil offence, it only becomes a criminal offence if it is aggravated trespass.
You do realise that despite your shooting fish in a barrel nonsense we will beat you (and you are a tory so don't run away from it) at the next election. If you read threads on PB you were all up for thinking Cameron would win 100 plus majorities.
You were wrong then and you were wrong now.
"As George Eaton has noted over at the New Statesman though, it won’t be Watson’s well known views on Falkirk that are problematic for Miliband, it’s his call for an EU referendum. It’s also his position on the economy, where he feels Labour – meaning his two friends Miliband and Balls – need to be bolder.
What Watson is saying is symptomatic of how many Labour MPs feel about the lack of messages and clarity coming from the leadership, which feeds a sense of drift in the party. But it’s not disloyal to point that out per se. Labour does need a better answer on the EU referendum (my preference is for a vote on General Election day) and Labour does need a better answer on how the economy can grow better and share the proceeds of growth fairly.
Saying that isn’t disloyal. And in fact sometimes loyalty means saying what your leader doesn’t want to hear – especially if it’s a message that needs to be heard. I hope Miliband is listening." http://labourlist.org/2013/08/sometimes-loyalty-means-saying-what-your-leader-doesnt-want-to-hear/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01bzxrl
Southcliffe - tomorrow on Channel 4 at 9pm:
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/southcliffe
" ...But “Pay £20 and be asked to deliver leaflets”: this is our offer? In 2013, when every day we heave a clutch of unwanted paper from under our letterboxes to our recycle bins, without once glancing at their contents? To imagine that leaflets are politically effective must be close to a definition of “bewildered”. To then hope that hundreds of adults will be found to do this, in every constituency, takes us closer to “delusional”. Lib Dems believe otherwise, but I find leaflets with photos of people pointing at cracks in the road, simulating outrage, to be sad, not politically compelling.
So change what it means to be a member. Become a registered Conservative supporter for a pound. Organise town halls to argue (about those cracks in the road) with the people in charge of them. All supporters should choose the shortlist for those who want to be elected as Conservatives; then everyone in their boroughs should be invited to take part in the final primary selection. And give all registered Tories a direct vote for the party chairman. One member-derived Tory sitting in shadow or real cabinet would be useful (and provide another strong reason to join). Oh, and of course: move conference back to the seaside, ban lobbyists from attending, and debate member-inspired motions. I don’t care if it would look shabby. It would also look like fun.
That we have two or three big parties, and not 15 dozen small ones, isn’t an accident; at some level we understand the value of sublimating our individual desires into something bigger, something wider. I find lobby groups – “community leaders” too – faintly suspect, for that reason. Without mass parties, that’s all we’re left with..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10247583/If-you-want-people-to-come-to-your-party-make-the-invitation-inviting.html
Now we're getting somewhere...
He thought it rather a peach
But it was ignored
As we were all bored
And winning the election out of reach.
I have no wish to see police "beat up British citizens", but neither do I want to see protesters worked up by fanatics - and there are quite a few - attack a legal business doing it's work: and this is what may happen as the demonstration takes hold.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture#Field_preparations
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
Allowing a politician to intervene in a tactical decision is very dangerous, especially where it is a matter of public order.
As it happens, I don't disagree with your summary of the situation - and have my doubts about the police decision - but this is not one for Cameron.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPkT0paGEnQ
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-right-of-peaceful-protest/protest-on-private-land.html
Superintendent Lawrence Hobbs said: "Right from the outset, we have been absolutely clear that our priority in this operation is safety - for the general public, for protesters, for Cuadrilla employees and for own officers and staff.
"Over the last three weeks our approach has been quite clear in that we will not tolerate any criminal behaviour and by Friday there had been 45 arrests in connection with the protests, with 33 people being charged with a range of offences.
"This morning (Saturday) we arrested a man in connection with threats made to a local landowner who asked a group encamped on land very close to the drilling site to leave. I should like to make it absolutely clear that while we are in full support of Cuadrilla's decision to scale back their activities during this period, it was their decision, which took into account Sussex Police's assessment of the likely impact of the extra protesters.
"For the last three weeks we have worked with all sides in a difficult balancing act to enable them all to meet their peaceful and lawful objectives, whether they be day-to-day commercial activities or protest. Cuadrilla's decision is a sensible one and we anticipate that in the next few days they will be in a position to resume their full operation and we will continue to police the situation fairly to ensure the safety of everyone involved."
A 23-year-old man, arrested on suspicion of a Section 4 public order offence was in custody on Saturday (August 17).
I'm perfectly aware of the hocus pocus. It's what I like to tease my son gently about.
But as he likes to point out, it doesn't stop me drinking the wine.
I am a Times subscriber - guess what - none of it can be accessed.
I've just spent 20 mins on the phone to a very helpful, intelligent girl. Conclusion: There are compatibility issues with Internet Explorer. try another browser.
Well I think it's an absolute disgrace. All the rest of the website works - why spend millions and millions of pounds on something and then make it so it doesn't work EASILY.
Every video on the BBC website works perfectly with no hassle - why can't The Times manage the same?
ben.whitelaw@newsint.co.uk
Labour would impose rent controls ‘without hesitation’ if it won the next election, its housing spokesman Jack Dromey has been secretly recorded saying.
His admission came eight days after Labour’s biggest paymaster the Unite union called for the party to adopt controls on what private landlords can charge.
It brought claims that Unite, where Mr Dromey was deputy general secretary until 2010, has ‘bought’ Labour policy.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395990/Labour-housing-supremo-secretly-recorded-making-threats-impose-rent-controls-landlords-charge-party-won-election.html#ixzz2cF3uJMTa
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
After all, why should everyone pay too much...
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/06/venezuelas-still-suffering-extreme-toilet-paper-shortage/5801/
The local playing field in my area is hosting a Thai cultural festival today and tomorrow. Just visited it and there must have been a few thousand Thai people there.
Fracking, apparently, produces as much energy on 4 hectares as the entire British Wind industry, just what are we waiting for?
If it's done overnight and existing contracts are ruled unlawful it'll be great for any existing tenants.
But anyone who wants a new tenancy will find that there are literally none available. Nobody in their right mind is going to agree to having their property confiscated.
Arsenal not getting decisions their way (typical... needed that late last season)
Arsenal squad down to bare bones. 3 more injuries....
Home defeat to start the season means 'club in crisis' with tough CL games against Fenerbace in next 10 days
'Perfect storm' for Arsenal on R5...
STAY GARETH - SURELY TODAY HAS GOT YOUR LILYWHITE BLOOD RUNNING?
Last time it was C28/L36/LD8/UKP18
Two points I'd like to make:
1) The police asking Quadrilla to slow-down their on-site activities during the protest is understandable. The site is temporary amidst trees and relatively open ground, and the machinery is dangerous. Protesters have shut down power stations on many occasions- for instance West Burton last November. And power stations are much more hardened against protest. I'd prefer if Quadrilla could continue operations, but can understand why they've been forced into this.
2) I'm generally in favour of fracking as it stands, but have reservations (perhaps falsely) on one point. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down into the ground, and in the past companies have been hesitant to release what those chemicals are. A prerequisite of any such drilling should be the registration - and careful monitoring - of the chemicals pumped in.
If they are harmless, the companies should be open and say what they are. If they are not harmless, we should know and it should be debated. At the moment, we have a great deal of FUD over the chemicals, and this plays into the protesters' hands.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/home - I can't get Vanilla to link so here's his homepage its the first article in top right hand of page called 5 Myths.
"Fourth, the ever-so-neutral BBC in a background briefing this week described fracking as releasing “hundreds of chemicals” into the rock. Out by an order of magnitude, Auntie. Fracking fluid is 99.51% water and sand. In the remaining 0.49% there are just 13 chemicals, all of which can be found in your kitchen, garage or bathroom: citric acid (lemon juice), hydrochloric acid (swimming pools), glutaraldehyde (disinfectant), guar (ice cream), dimethylformamide (plastics), isopropanol (deodorant), borate (hand soap); ammonium persulphate (hair dye); potassium chloride (intravenous drips), sodium carbonate (detergent), ethylene glycol (de-icer), ammonium bisulphite (cosmetics), petroleum distillate (cosmetics)."
Did you see that Labour does not know the difference between "bear" and "bare"?
"So Tom Watson has given an interview to Decca Aitkenhead (who seems to have a remarkable ability to get Labour politicians to bear their souls) in which he argues that the way the Falkirk farrago has been handled by the party – especially reporting the selection to the police – was “silly”.
I see this mistake daily on bbc or similar internet sites - of course what are we to expect from an education system where English grammar is rarely taught and spelling tests are ruled out as 'unfair' to educationally-challenged and where spellcheck is king.
Can't you move those protesters to the nearest dairy farm?
"Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. "
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm
Perhaps they could stand by and collect the methane emitted by each cow and so prevent atmospheric pollution!
If I were in charge I'd unleash the enormo-haddock.
I'm sure he'd be happy to drink a glass given it is so safe.
Some interesting leader ratings
Re some of the earlier comments the reason shale in the US is not having much of an international effect is the lack of LPG facilities and the lack of an incentive given domestic demand. We have LPG facilities but they are designed for import not export. If we want to make things in this country we need to get on with this and these prats need to be ignored.
However: I'm not sure I trust the companies fully on this. The 'commercially sensitive' shtick is poor: a chemical plant would not be allowed to releases chemicals into a water supply without saying exactly what they are. And whilst the drilling should occur well below the water-supply aquifers, there may be problems and migration.
It needs monitoring at the very least.
The following link from the blog Plato linked to is instructive: http://www.redriversecurities.com/fracingchemicals.htm
Note that the chemicals listed are just "main compounds"
I am not saying that there are no problems with the chemicals used; just that we should know. This lack of information just plays into the protesters' hands. An example: some of the more hysterical campaigners claim that radioactive substances are being pumped down ('buried') as well as (rightly) pumped out (in the form of Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials - NORMs).
Jonathan: I fear that you, like many people, are unaware of exactly what tap water is, and the chemicals that can be found as standard in it. Quality and mineralisation varies from area to area. Given some of the water I've drunk when I've been wild camping, I'd happily drink any water coming out of these areas after fracking. But more openness from the companies would be welcome.
"It has been reported that new intelligence claimed the Princess was killed by a member of the British military, but Scotland Yard refused to give any more details about its nature.
The information is also believed to have been passed to the Met by the Royal Military Police, after being raised by the parents-in-law of a former soldier. The new dossier is said to include a reference to the Special Air Service, or SAS.
If material has indeed been uncovered by another police force it could lead to it being attached more weight than numerous other conspiracy theories, which were rejected by an inquest in 2008."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10249663/Scotland-Yard-examines-new-information-on-death-of-Diana-Princess-of-Wales.html
They've lost half their readership in the last 10 years so let's hope so and with a bit of luck the daft publication will cease trading entirely. It's already the lowest circulating of the main tabloids so Diana / Weather / Houseprices / Maddie don't seem to be doing the trick.
Is it be possible to drill an exploratory wellbore from within the tower of a wind turbine?
This may be a cunning way of confusing the anti-fracking lobby.
There's the usual yougov for the Sunday Times as well
Either that or more nuclear plants
My point would be a subtle one. If God exists I turn my back on him because he has no right to be called 'God'. He is not God, since, to parody Anselm, I can conceive of a being more loving and therefore more worthy to be God. It's a theodicy of protest. God might exist, but he is not ... God.
OK OK, so there's one possible 'out' for me, and it lies in the notion of divine rupture, of a God who, pace the scholastics, is God precisely because he can suffer, supremely so in his son on the cross. There is no other place a Christian should go in the face of suffering except to shut the f*ck up in the face of human suffering and listen to the divine Son who screams 'my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'
Smoke me a kipper!!
You would not allowed to knit them here - send a protest group!
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/knitting-group-barred-from-meeting-at-local-library-because-of-dangerous-needles-8772402.html
As for why God allows suffering, there was a very good novel written a few years ago - The Shack - that addresses that very question (it's not an easy book - brutally disturbing in places)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Shack-Wm-Paul-Young/dp/0340979496/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376763047&sr=8-1&keywords=the+shack
I used to be kind-of involved in a remote way to a large chemical plant. Water samples were taken from the river downstream of the plant every hour, and samples were tested daily (the hourly ones were used as backups for the daily ones, and helped see when the changes occurred). Changes in the chemical composition of the water had to be explained. This task was made harder by the fact the water company itself has a sewage works a short distance upstream, and blame for some chemicals rebounded between the two. (*)
To aid their case, the chemical plant kept fish in the outlet culverts. If the fish were still alive, it was hard to blame them for fish dying in the river.
Say in five years after fracking, it is noted that ground- or aquifer- water is being polluted with chemical X. The secrecy means that the companies will be liable to claims that they put chemical X into the water, when the source could be from anything. It would be much easier for them to refute if they could prove that none of chemical X ever went into the supply. The secrecy will work against them in any court case.
Note: none of this means I am against fracking, or saying it should not go ahead. It's just something I would like to see sorted before it's done on a large scale.
(*) As a result of this, I became intimately knowledgeable of the workings of massive Dorr-Oliver settlement tanks. But that's far too geeky, even for PB...
I'm still not convinced by the argument that God doesn't exist because bad things happen (or, alternatively, because the deaths of billions of innocents of the millennia proves He is unloving. That would be to judge God by human morality. Actually, I'm not sold on the idea of god/s at all but if they do exist, I'm sure they operate a wholly different philosophy to the Western liberal consensus.
If I were to believe in gods, it would be on the basis that they intervene in the physical world as and when it pleases them, and for their own amusement. The pre-Christian (and certainly pre-20th century) concept of religion seems to fit far better with the evidence of nature and human history than the alternatives.
Two scientists walk into a bar. The first scientist says, "I'll have some H2O." and drinks it. The second scientist says, "I'll have H2O too" and dies.
Trouble is, too many people "dropped" science at school in favour of something else, maybe easier.
The grammar school I attended in the 50's gave us a choice in the IVth form onward. No-one in my time ever changed horses!
Chemistry, Physics and Biology or History, Geography and Latin. That's all three Sciences or all three "Arts".
As I was on the Science side I never studied history etc. beyond the Glorious Revolution. Have had to do a lot of reading to catch up!
We need to distinguish here between the Christian God to whom you are referring and the Deus ex Machina of David Herdson.
The PB tories surely don't forget what a roaring success Cammie's tiny windmill was already?
*chortle*
;^ )