Well, while it's on fire they can hardly say they're sure it's going to be fine really, can they?
I don't think we're going to actually know much about the extent of the damage for a couple of days (unless it all falls in a heap). It will take that long, for a start, for it to cool down sufficiently for any inspections to begin.
It's impossible to get a true sense of it from the news video live feeds, but it looks gone to me. They ain't bringing that back. I'd say it's more a salvage operation now with crews covered by jets to save what treasures they can.
Well, you know a lot more about these things than me, and it certainly looks very bad. But medieval buildings because of the materials used in their construction can be surprisingly resistant to fire. If the Great Fire of London left the walls of St Paul's standing so they had to be blown up with gunpowder, and if Coventry is still there, I'm not giving up hope yet.
There will be a walls standing, but the rest of it is gone. The crews will probably be just trying to save what they can and stop it spreading to other properties ( I don't know the layout of the area, so don't know what it is near).
I think I'm right in saying it stands with a massive square in front of it and garden space all around it, although I've never been there. So I doubt if any other properties are at risk.
Other properties are close by on the north and north east but downwind (WNW) is the large open square.
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
Who are you to say that the people protesting in the city streets aren't doing the other things too?
And yet it isn't enough. Governments are the best tool we have for organising collective action, and we need them to organise determined, urgent action to avert the worst.
Without collective action everything else is just raging against the dying of the light. Sure, I'll do it anyway, because what else am I going to do, but the decisive action needs to be taken on a different scale - and that clearly isn't going to happen without pressure on governments from voting, protests, school strikes, anything people can think of and organise.
I walked across Waterloo Bridge this afternoon. I'm sure those people are doing other things. Drugs mainly.
Well, while it's on fire they can hardly say they're sure it's going to be fine really, can they?
I don't think we're going to actually know much about the extent of the damage for a couple of days (unless it all falls in a heap). It will take that long, for a start, for it to cool down sufficiently for any inspections to begin.
It's impossible to get a true sense of it from the news video live feeds, but it looks gone to me. They ain't bringing that back. I'd say it's more a salvage operation now with crews covered by jets to save what treasures they can.
Well, you know a lot more about these things than me, and it certainly looks very bad. But medieval buildings because of the materials used in their construction can be surprisingly resistant to fire. If the Great Fire of London left the walls of St Paul's standing so they had to be blown up with gunpowder, and if Coventry is still there, I'm not giving up hope yet.
There will be a walls standing, but the rest of it is gone. The crews will probably be just trying to save what they can and stop it spreading to other properties ( I don't know the layout of the area, so don't know what it is near).
I think I'm right in saying it stands with a massive square in front of it and garden space all around it, although I've never been there. So I doubt if any other properties are at risk.
Blazing embers can cause further fires. My wife and I have visited it several times and found much peace there in common with most Cathedrals and Chuches we visit. While not catholics we always light candles in Cathedrals and Churches we visit
Well, while it's on fire they can hardly say they're sure it's going to be fine really, can they?
I don't think we're going to actually know much about the extent of the damage for a couple of days (unless it all falls in a heap). It will take that long, for a start, for it to cool down sufficiently for any inspections to begin.
It's impossible to get a true sense of it from the news video live feeds, but it looks gone to me. They ain't bringing that back. I'd say it's more a salvage operation now with crews covered by jets to save what treasures they can.
I'd want to see evidence that the stone vaults had gone before thinking it was beyond salvation. Clearly, the timber roof above the vaults has been completely consumed but the whole idea of stone vaulted roofs was to protect against fire.
Time will tell.
That was the intent, and I hope you are right.
But it should be remembered that these Cathedrals were not engineered. The builders would look at what had been done before, push it further, innovate, and if it fell down during construction or after, they or someone else would try with another innovation. Many of our Cathedrals show the scars of this if you look carefully: e.g. Ely's northwest transept, or Lincoln's central spire.
The intent of the vaulting might have been to protect against fire; it was not 'engineered' in a modern sense to do that; and it might have been only to prevent small fires, not the conflagration we sadly saw today.
Yes, I agree with all those points. The vaulting in Old St. Pauls was not enough to save it in 1666 of course.
There had been but, assuming the BBC stream is live, it looks like they have directed the hoses away from the north tower now, so I assume they feel they have that doused now.
On topic, I don't think Cleverly is going to declare, I don't think he'd win the leaver MPs' ticket against Raab if he did (unless, perhaps, we'd already left), and I don't think he'd win the Leavey Remainer vs Remainy Leaver battle with Hunt amongst the members if he did (unless we'd not left). And for that reason, ahm oot.
On thread, the Emmanuel bourdon bell in the (I think) south tower of Notre Dame is usually only rung for high days and holy days or, sadly, to mark national tragedies. I hope it has survived. If not, here for your consideration is the bourdon giving it full chat for Palm Sunday : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebig6_SxtzE&t=23s
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
Well said.
Plastic lawns, FFS. If you don't want a garden, don't live in a house with a garden.
And we should have washing lines. I am the only one in my street to have one. No dryers chez Cyclefree. Just wind and dry air. All that wasted electricity to make your clothes smell like dog blankets.... ugh.
Only viable if one has nice underwear.
I will probably regret this - but can I suggest plain white underwear. Available from all good retail outlets.
Honestly, how else can you dry your sheets and duvet covers and pillow-cases if not on a washing-line.
Oh I completely agree. We have a line and use it all the time. Almost never use the dryer. My wife had nice underwear and mine is okay, although only some - not all - is white.
It’s weird how people have stopped using washing lines.
That picture shows flames and embers substantially on top of the stone vaulting. If so, and the vaulting has held, that will be a massive plus.
Yes - and do you notice also that the windows are dark? That suggests no fire inside. Which gives me just a flicker of hope (no pun intended, for once) that it isn't quite as bad as it looks.
But of course, that doesn't mean it can't still spread.
I think I'm right in saying it stands with a massive square in front of it and garden space all around it, although I've never been there. So I doubt if any other properties are at risk.
I think I'm right in saying it stands with a massive square in front of it and garden space all around it, although I've never been there. So I doubt if any other properties are at risk.
That picture shows flames and embers substantially on top of the stone vaulting. If so, and the vaulting has held, that will be a massive plus.
They will be pumping hundreds of thousands of litres of water into it to try and contain it. Even if the vaults hold, there is bound to be gaps that heat is transferred through which will cause damage below the vaults. The water that doesn't turn to steam will find it's way through the vaults. The water damage alone will be massive.
That picture shows flames and embers substantially on top of the stone vaulting. If so, and the vaulting has held, that will be a massive plus.
Yes - and do you notice also that the windows are dark? That suggests no fire inside. Which gives me just a flicker of hope (no pun intended, for once) that it isn't quite as bad as it looks.
But of course, that doesn't mean it can't still spread.
Agreed, and there's a mass of burning charcoal on the vault which is not going to be doing it any good.
I am assuming no one is risking sending firefighters inside given the vault could collapse at any moment.
It’s all on here somewhere, the truth will out maybe.
I don’t have vehement views against her, I quite like her, she just said things to me when we campaigned that if I repeated them would make you change your mind.
Please repeat them.
No I wont do that. Just forget about it, its an old argument thats not worth squabbling over now.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not glorifying in the destruction, I just have a different perspective as to the significance of the building.
The problem is that you're very selective. If you want to see something that has really damaged the environment (and continues to do so), don't focus on cathedrals, but on the computer you are using and the infrastructure it uses to connect to the Internet.
By all rights you shouldn't use computers or be on the Internet. The mining alone for rare earths is rather polluting and in some cases causes political and environmental issues, and the servers you use on t'Internet use loads of juice, however much Google et al try to use renewables.
Oh, I agree; just about every facet of modern life has adverse effects on our planet. I can only see that ending with the extinction of our species.
They might not accept parents though. Having children in developed countries dwarfs the environmental impact of any other conceivable lifestyle change.
It looks to me as though the fire is now substantially contained and away from the towers. Which would be good news although I fear the firefighters of Paris have a long 24 hours ahead,
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
I'd never thought of it in environmental terms, but we do most of those things at home. And, we do get all sorts of wildlife in the garden, such as deer, pheasants, owls, badgers, and lots of bees and butterflies. Wardown Crescent must be a haven for wildlife, as there lots of large back gardens, with a kind of wilderness running at the back of them.
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
Who will be the first politician to suggest that no UK funds be used to restore Notre Dame?
That's a bizarre thing to say. I don't want us paying for it. Why would we? Unless you think France is a poor third world country that we should do a benefit concert for?
Who will be the first politician to suggest that no UK funds be used to restore Notre Dame?
Whether we do or not I doubt the French would expect others to offer any funds, so I doubt an UK politician will need to comment one way or another on that front.
Who will be the first politician to suggest that no UK funds be used to restore Notre Dame?
That's a bizarre thing to say. I don't want us paying for it. Why would we? Unless you think France is a poor third world country that we should do a benefit concert for?
Who will be the first politician to suggest that no UK funds be used to restore Notre Dame?
That's a bizarre thing to say. I don't want us paying for it. Why would we? Unless you think France is a poor third world country that we should do a benefit concert for?
Who will be the first politician to suggest that no UK funds be used to restore Notre Dame?
That's a bizarre thing to say. I don't want us paying for it. Why would we? Unless you think France is a poor third world country that we should do a benefit concert for?
Notre Dame belongs to the world, not France
I would strongly advise you not to tell any Parisians that, especially not today.
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
I'd never thought of it in environmental terms, but we do most of those things at home. And, we do get all sorts of wildlife in the garden, such as deer, pheasants, owls, badgers, and lots of bees and butterflies. Wardown Crescent must be a haven for wildlife, as there lots of large back gardens, with a kind of wilderness running at the back of them.
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
Deer, pheasants, owls andbadgets? Your garden sounds enormous!
The most I did for my garden was not cut the grass for 18 months because I refused to pay the additional fee the council imposed for green waste collection. I'd like to think that aided wildlife a little.
Who will be the first politician to suggest that no UK funds be used to restore Notre Dame?
That's a bizarre thing to say. I don't want us paying for it. Why would we? Unless you think France is a poor third world country that we should do a benefit concert for?
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
I'd never thought of it in environmental terms, but we do most of those things at home. And, we do get all sorts of wildlife in the garden, such as deer, pheasants, owls, badgers, and lots of bees and butterflies. Wardown Crescent must be a haven for wildlife, as there lots of large back gardens, with a kind of wilderness running at the back of them.
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
Deer, pheasants, owls andbadgets? Your garden sounds enormous!
The most I did for my garden was not cut the grass for 18 months because I refused to pay the additional fee the council imposed for green waste collection. I'd like to think that aided wildlife a little.
Sticking it to the man! I assume the council relented in their policies?
Who will be the first politician to suggest that no UK funds be used to restore Notre Dame?
That's a bizarre thing to say. I don't want us paying for it. Why would we? Unless you think France is a poor third world country that we should do a benefit concert for?
Notre Dame belongs to the world, not France
I'm just guessing, but I would have thought most in France would take a certain pride if restoration were done fully by french hands and french funds. It's a global treasure, but france is its creator and keeper.
Who will be the first politician to suggest that no UK funds be used to restore Notre Dame?
That's a bizarre thing to say. I don't want us paying for it. Why would we? Unless you think France is a poor third world country that we should do a benefit concert for?
Though not of the same scale, this very much reminds me of the fire in York Minster's south transcept. In that case, though the roof and glass was lost, they were able to save the walls and eventually rebuild.
Oh I completely agree. We have a line and use it all the time. Almost never use the dryer. My wife had nice underwear and mine is okay, although only some - not all - is white.
It’s weird how people have stopped using washing lines.
We have a washing line but I don't trust the kids not to hang off it and break it. We have a folding standing rack that we use inside, as well as the dryer.
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
I'd never thought of it in environmental terms, but we do most of those things at home. And, we do get all sorts of wildlife in the garden, such as deer, pheasants, owls, badgers, and lots of bees and butterflies. Wardown Crescent must be a haven for wildlife, as there lots of large back gardens, with a kind of wilderness running at the back of them.
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
Deer, pheasants, owls andbadgets? Your garden sounds enormous!
The most I did for my garden was not cut the grass for 18 months because I refused to pay the additional fee the council imposed for green waste collection. I'd like to think that aided wildlife a little.
Sticking it to the man! I assume the council relented in their policies?
On the contrary, the take up of green waste collection by additional fee was much more successful than they expected, to the point I am surprised they have not tried other a la carte service offerings for additional charges.
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
I'd never thought of it in environmental terms, but we do most of those things at home. And, we do get all sorts of wildlife in the garden, such as deer, pheasants, owls, badgers, and lots of bees and butterflies. Wardown Crescent must be a haven for wildlife, as there lots of large back gardens, with a kind of wilderness running at the back of them.
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
Deer, pheasants, owls andbadgets? Your garden sounds enormous!
The most I did for my garden was not cut the grass for 18 months because I refused to pay the additional fee the council imposed for green waste collection. I'd like to think that aided wildlife a little.
It is a large garden, adjoining large gardens. When it was built, developers worked on the basis of four houses per acre, and the previous owner bought half the neighbouring garden, so it's about 3/8 of an acre.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not glorifying in the destruction, I just have a different perspective as to the significance of the building.
The problem is that you're very selective. If you want to see something that has really damaged the environment (and continues to do so), don't focus on cathedrals, but on the computer you are using and the infrastructure it uses to connect to the Internet.
By all rights you shouldn't use computers or be on the Internet. The mining alone for rare earths is rather polluting and in some cases causes political and environmental issues, and the servers you use on t'Internet use loads of juice, however much Google et al try to use renewables.
Oh, I agree; just about every facet of modern life has adverse effects on our planet. I can only see that ending with the extinction of our species.
They might not accept parents though. Having children in developed countries dwarfs the environmental impact of any other conceivable lifestyle change.
They sound like a barrel of laughs.
They're not wrong though. The biological imperative to reproduce is entirely at odds with all the evidence that mankind is reproducing in an unsustainable way and the best thing we can do to reduce our impact on the environment is to not reproduce. But good luck beating a billion years of evolutionary biology.
I often wonder what we consider to be socially acceptable, nay moral, in 2019 will be considered as repugnant as smoking, slavery, or putting up a statue to the likes of Colston or Rhodes in 2119. Perhaps the idea that reproduction is a good thing and a natural right will be one of them.its really no less against nature than many of the biological facts sjws want us to ignore today.
Obviously tragic in France, but it's a chance for a 21st century masterpiece to rise in its place. St Pauls burned to the ground in 1666, giving Wren the canvas to work on.
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
I'd never thought of it in environmental terms, but we do most of those things at home. And, we do get all sorts of wildlife in the garden, such as deer, pheasants, owls, badgers, and lots of bees and butterflies. Wardown Crescent must be a haven for wildlife, as there lots of large back gardens, with a kind of wilderness running at the back of them.
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
Deer, pheasants, owls andbadgets? Your garden sounds enormous!
The most I did for my garden was not cut the grass for 18 months because I refused to pay the additional fee the council imposed for green waste collection. I'd like to think that aided wildlife a little.
It is a large garden, adjoining large gardens. When it was built, developers worked on the basis of four houses per acre, and the previous owner bought half the neighbouring garden, so it's about 3/8 of an acre.
Reminds me of the old Edwardian gardening advice (probably apocryphal):
"No matter how small one's garden one should always set aside at least half an acre for trees."
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
I'd never thought of it in environmental terms, but we do most of those things at home. And, we do get all sorts of wildlife in the garden, such as deer, pheasants, owls, badgers, and lots of bees and butterflies. Wardown Crescent must be a haven for wildlife, as there lots of large back gardens, with a kind of wilderness running at the back of them.
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
I have 4. I still have songbirds as the cats spend their days sleeping and demanding food. The nest boxes are in the front where no cats roam and every year I get a new family of blue tits singing outside the bedroom window.
I also have toads and there are foxes all over the place.
Obviously tragic in France, but it's a chance for a 21st century masterpiece to rise in its place. St Pauls burned to the ground in 1666, giving Wren the canvas to work on.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not glorifying in the destruction, I just have a different perspective as to the significance of the building.
The problem is that you're very selective. If you want to see something that has really damaged the environment (and continues to do so), don't focus on cathedrals, but on the computer you are using and the infrastructure it uses to connect to the Internet.
By all rights you shouldn't use computers or be on the Internet. The mining alone for rare earths is rather polluting and in some cases causes political and environmental issues, and the servers you use on t'Internet use loads of juice, however much Google et al try to use renewables.
Oh, I agree; just about every facet of modern life has adverse effects on our planet. I can only see that ending with the extinction of our species.
They might not accept parents though. Having children in developed countries dwarfs the environmental impact of any other conceivable lifestyle change.
They sound like a barrel of laughs.
They're not wrong though. The biological imperative to reproduce is entirely at odds with all the evidence that mankind is reproducing in an unsustainable way and the best thing we can do to reduce our impact on the environment is to not reproduce. But good luck beating a billion years of evolutionary biology.
I often wonder what we consider to be socially acceptable, nay moral, in 2019 will be considered as repugnant as smoking, slavery, or putting up a statue to the likes of Colston or Rhodes in 2119. Perhaps the idea that reproduction is a good thing and a natural right will be one of them.its really no less against nature than many of the biological facts sjws want us to ignore today.
They are wrong. In most countries, birthrates are at, or below, replacement level. Life is mostly enjoyable. Why would one wish to deny it to future generations?
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
I'd never thought of it in environmental terms, but we do most of those things at home. And, we do get all sorts of wildlife in the garden, such as deer, pheasants, owls, badgers, and lots of bees and butterflies. Wardown Crescent must be a haven for wildlife, as there lots of large back gardens, with a kind of wilderness running at the back of them.
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
Deer, pheasants, owls andbadgets? Your garden sounds enormous!
The most I did for my garden was not cut the grass for 18 months because I refused to pay the additional fee the council imposed for green waste collection. I'd like to think that aided wildlife a little.
Sticking it to the man! I assume the council relented in their policies?
On the contrary, the take up of green waste collection by additional fee was much more successful than they expected, to the point I am surprised they have not tried other a la carte service offerings for additional charges.
I refused to pay the fee. I take mine to the recycling centre myself once there is enough to make it worthwhile and take some of the neighbours' rubbish as well. Occasionally the council collects my bag by mistake.
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
I'd never thought of it in environmental terms, but we do most of those things at home. And, we do get all sorts of wildlife in the garden, such as deer, pheasants, owls, badgers, and lots of bees and butterflies. Wardown Crescent must be a haven for wildlife, as there lots of large back gardens, with a kind of wilderness running at the back of them.
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
Deer, pheasants, owls andbadgets? Your garden sounds enormous!
The most I did for my garden was not cut the grass for 18 months because I refused to pay the additional fee the council imposed for green waste collection. I'd like to think that aided wildlife a little.
It is a large garden, adjoining large gardens. When it was built, developers worked on the basis of four houses per acre, and the previous owner bought half the neighbouring garden, so it's about 3/8 of an acre.
Reminds me of the old Edwardian gardening advice (probably apocryphal):
"No matter how small one's garden one should always set aside at least half an acre for trees."
Good advice. About one third of the garden is apple and damson trees. The fruit is not just good to eat, but some of it rots into the ground, enriching it.
I think he's hinting he expects negligence by the contractors to be the root cause.
Certainly I would not want to be in their shoes right now, whether they were negligent or not.
Or maybe it is that buildings like this are vulnerable when they are being repaired. Remember the Mackintosh building in Glasgow which burnt down twice.
I hope that it can be repaired. And while the French are well able to do this, I'm sure, if there is technical expertise or help we can offer, we should do so.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not glorifying in the destruction, I just have a different perspective as to the significance of the building.
The problem is that you're very selective. If you want to see something that has really damaged the environment (and continues to do so), don't focus on cathedrals, but on the computer you are using and the infrastructure it uses to connect to the Internet.
By all rights you shouldn't use computers or be on the Internet. The mining alone for rare earths is rather polluting and in some cases causes political and environmental issues, and the servers you use on t'Internet use loads of juice, however much Google et al try to use renewables.
Oh, I agree; just about every facet of modern life has adverse effects on our planet. I can only see that ending with the extinction of our species.
They might not accept parents though. Having children in developed countries dwarfs the environmental impact of any other conceivable lifestyle change.
They sound like a barrel of laughs.
They're not wrong though. The biological imperative to reproduce is entirely at odds with all the evidence that mankind is reproducing in an unsustainable way and the best thing we can do to reduce our impact on the environment is to not reproduce. But good luck beating a billion years of evolutionary biology.
I often wonder what we consider to be socially acceptable, nay moral, in 2019 will be considered as repugnant as smoking, slavery, or putting up a statue to the likes of Colston or Rhodes in 2119. Perhaps the idea that reproduction is a good thing and a natural right will be one of them.its really no less against nature than many of the biological facts sjws want us to ignore today.
They are wrong. In most countries, birthrates are at, or below, replacement level. Life is mostly enjoyable. Why would one wish to deny it to future generations?
Wrong. Population globally is predicted to rise from about 7bn now to 11bn by 2100. I'm not trying to argue the case myself, I think it's a biological imperative to want to reproduce. I'm merely asking whether the people of the 22nd century will thank us for it.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not glorifying in the destruction, I just have a different perspective as to the significance of the building.
The problem is that you're very selective. If you want to see something that has really damaged the environment (and continues to do so), don't focus on cathedrals, but on the computer you are using and the infrastructure it uses to connect to the Internet.
By all rights you shouldn't use computers or be on the Internet. The mining alone for rare earths is rather polluting and in some cases causes political and environmental issues, and the servers you use on t'Internet use loads of juice, however much Google et al try to use renewables.
Oh, I agree; just about every facet of modern life has adverse effects on our planet. I can only see that ending with the extinction of our species.
They might not accept parents though. Having children in developed countries dwarfs the environmental impact of any other conceivable lifestyle change.
They sound like a barrel of laughs.
They're not wrong though. The biological imperative to reproduce is entirely at odds with all the evidence that mankind is reproducing in an unsustainable way and the best thing we can do to reduce our impact on the environment is to not reproduce. But good luck beating a billion years of evolutionary biology.
I often wonder what we consider to be socially acceptable, nay moral, in 2019 will be considered as repugnant as smoking, slavery, or putting up a statue to the likes of Colston or Rhodes in 2119. Perhaps the idea that reproduction is a good thing and a natural right will be one of them.its really no less against nature than many of the biological facts sjws want us to ignore today.
They are wrong. In most countries, birthrates are at, or below, replacement level. Life is mostly enjoyable. Why would one wish to deny it to future generations?
Wrong. Population globally is predicted to rise from about 7bn now to 11bn by 2100. I'm not trying to argue the case myself, I think it's a biological imperative to want to reproduce. I'm merely asking whether the people of the 22nd century will thank us for it.
I'm not wrong about birthrates. Rising population is now driven by increased longevity, which is a good thing. 10-11 bn is the figure that it will peak at, before gently declining.
See the Glasgow School of Art press coverage passim, and the impression it created that you can/should have a fully complete and effective fire detection and suppression system at every stage of a restoration contract.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not glorifying in the destruction, I just have a different perspective as to the significance of the building.
The problem is that you're very selective. If you want to see something that has really damaged the environment (and continues to do so), don't focus on cathedrals, but on the computer you are using and the infrastructure it uses to connect to the Internet.
By all rights you shouldn't use computers or be on the Internet. The mining alone for rare earths is rather polluting and in some cases causes political and environmental issues, and the servers you use on t'Internet use loads of juice, however much Google et al try to use renewables.
Oh, I agree; just about every facet of modern life has adverse effects on our planet. I can only see that ending with the extinction of our species.
They might not accept parents though. Having children in developed countries dwarfs the environmental impact of any other conceivable lifestyle change.
They sound like a barrel of laughs.
They're not wrong though. The biological imperative to reproduce is entirely at odds with all the evidence that mankind is reproducing in an unsustainable way and the best thing we can do to reduce our impact on the environment is to not reproduce. But good luck beating a billion years of evolutionary biology.
I often wonder what we consider to be socially acceptable, nay moral, in 2019 will be considered as repugnant as smoking, slavery, or putting up a statue to the likes of Colston or Rhodes in 2119. Perhaps the idea that reproduction is a good thing and a natural right will be one of them.its really no less against nature than many of the biological facts sjws want us to ignore today.
They are wrong. In most countries, birthrates are at, or below, replacement level. Life is mostly enjoyable. Why would one wish to deny it to future generations?
Wrong. Population globally is predicted to rise from about 7bn now to 11bn by 2100. I'm not trying to argue the case myself, I think it's a biological imperative to want to reproduce. I'm merely asking whether the people of the 22nd century will thank us for it.
You're both right. In most countries the population is fairly stable, but in a minority of countries — mainly in Africa and west/south Asia — it's still rising fast which is having a big impact on the world population.
I think he's hinting he expects negligence by the contractors to be the root cause.
Certainly I would not want to be in their shoes right now, whether they were negligent or not.
Or maybe it is that buildings like this are vulnerable when they are being repaired. Remember the Mackintosh building in Glasgow which burnt down twice.
Or the Cutty Sark.
I agree with you btw. I just think depending on the extent of the damage there may be sufficient anger to start a witch hunt.
If we wanted to do something for our planet and our health, we should be gardening in every possible available outside space: back gardens, front gardens (none of this paving over for cars nonsense), roof terraces, green roofs over bin sheds etc. We should be guerrilla gardening in roundabouts and planting under street trees. We should be putting up nest boxes for birds and leaving holes in our fences so that hedgehogs can travel around. We should be having insect boxes. We should have more allotments. We should ban artificial lawns (plastic in a garden, for the love of all that is holy!). We should be having water butts. We should be planting trees not pulling them down
Rather than just making a nuisance of ourselves in city streets.
It is not everything we should do but it is something that all of us can do and which would make a difference to our habitat and to making the places we live in, both private and public, both more beautiful and more healthy.
And yet you only have to walk around to see all sorts of areas crying out for such attention utterly neglected. I wonder how many of those demonstrating today, for instance, actually do any of this stuff. Gardening seems to be the preserve of the middle-aged and yet it is one of the greenest things even the youngest of us could be doing.
Rant over.
I'd never tho
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
Deer, pheasants, owls andbadgets? Your garden sounds enormous!
The most I did for my garden was not cut the grass for 18 months because I refused to pay the additional fee the council imposed for green waste collection. I'd like to think that aided wildlife a little.
Sticking it to the man! I assume the council relented in their policies?
On the contrary, the take up of green waste collection by additional fee was much more successful than they expected, to the point I am surprised they have not tried other a la carte service offerings for additional charges.
I refused to pay the fee. I take mine to the recycling centre myself once there is enough to make it worthwhile and take some of the neighbours' rubbish as well.
Yes, that's how I do it now. More than even the principle that they were charging on top of council tax for it and the worry they would do that for other services, the charge was larger, for just that one service, that the council tax rise, so it seemed very over the top.
I'd support 24 hour news being switched off for a few months, just to see whether we all get happier as a result. I've certainly wasted an enormous amount of time since about 2003 watching it.
I love that for plenty of people, Labour and Tory, gaining new members is a real and legitimate fear because who within the party benefits from those joining..
Although in both cases while the influx greatly expanded and will expand the power and influence of one faction within the party, that faction is probably already in the ascendent. Definitely for the Tories since we know most Tory members are gung ho for no deal (no, not all, but even BigG admits they are the largest group), and in Labour's case since Corbyn won among 2015 members as well clearly the entryism helped but was not the cause of the direction they headed in.
That picture shows flames and embers substantially on top of the stone vaulting. If so, and the vaulting has held, that will be a massive plus.
They will be pumping hundreds of thousands of litres of water into it to try and contain it. Even if the vaults hold, there is bound to be gaps that heat is transferred through which will cause damage below the vaults. The water that doesn't turn to steam will find it's way through the vaults. The water damage alone will be massive.
It wasn't fire that destroyed the French liner Normandie - it was the New York Fire Department (requisitioned by the US, caught fire when being converted to a troop ship, capsized after NYFD flooded her upper decks).
Isn't gridlocking road traffic in Central London a very good way of causing extra pollution, and so a rather stupid way of protesting against pollution?
Dont get me wrong, I'm not glorifying in the destruction, I just have a different perspective as to the significance of the building.
Theis that you're very selective. If you want to see something that has really damaged the environment (and continues to do so), don't focus on cathedrals, but on the computer you are using and the infrastructure it uses to connect to the Internet.
By all rights you shouldn't use computers or be on the Internet. The mining alone for rare earths is rather polluting and in some cases causes political and environmental issues, and the servers you use on t'Internet use loads of juice, however much Google et al try to use renewables.
Oh, I agree; just about every facet of modern life has adverse effects on our planet. I can only see that ending with the extinction of our species.
They might not accept parents though. Having children in developed countries dwarfs the environmental impact of any other conceivable lifestyle change.
They sound like a barrel of laughs.
They're not wrong though. The biological imperative to reproduce is entirely at odds with all the evidence that mankind is reproducing in an unsustainable way and the best thing we can do to reduce our impact on the environment is to not reproduce. But good luck beating a billion years of evolutionary biology.
I often wonder what we consider to be socially acceptable, nay moral, in 2019 will be considered as repugnant as smoking, slavery, or putting up a statue to the likes of Colston or Rhodes in 2119. Perhaps the idea that reproduction is a good thing and a natural right will be one of them.its really no less against nature than many of the biological facts sjws want us to ignore today.
They are wrong. In most countries, birthrates are at, or below, replacement level. Life is mostly enjoyable. Why would one wish to deny it to future generations?
Wrong. Population globally is predicted to rise from about 7bn now to 11bn by 2100. I'm not trying to argue the case myself, I think it's a biological imperative to want to reproduce. I'm merely asking whether the people of the 22nd century will thank us for it.
But we are at what Hans Rosling described as peak child, in his excellent video explaining global population. It will take a generation for current children to mature, after which the expectation is that global population will stablise. Most of the growth meantime will be in Africa.
I am a rather puritanical Christian, so prefer a far simpler architectural and litergical style, but am very saddened to see such loss of artistic and cultural heritage. It is part of all our history, not just the French.
I love medieval architecture, and especially Gothic. What I can't stand is the gilding and paint of Catholic churches - Pugin's interior's make me feel sick. It's almost as though they distract from the beauty of the medieval stoneworkers' and carvers' craft.
Having said that, many small churches were ruined by Victorian improvements.
I think that British churches were also very gilded and painted until the Puritans whitewashed over them and removed the idolatrous statuary.
But all I can say is that the gilding isn't really my thing: the architecture is.
It is not my thing either. But if you want to see the most over the top gilding ever, go to the Hermitage in Leningrad. You'll need sunglasses indoors.
St Mary’s Undercroft in Westminster is special too.
An Edwardian copy of Byzantium, restored with extra gilding by the Victorians
I love that for plenty of people, Labour and Tory, gaining new members is a real and legitimate fear because who within the party benefits from those joining..
Although in both cases while the influx greatly expanded and will expand the power and influence of one faction within the party, that faction is probably already in the ascendent. Definitely for the Tories since we know most Tory members are gung ho for no deal (no, not all, but even BigG admits they are the largest group), and in Labour's case since Corbyn won among 2015 members as well clearly the entryism helped but was not the cause of the direction they headed in.
The party had 330,000 members in 2001, when members elected IDS. If it got back to that figure, it probably wouldn't alter its ideological balance by very much. If it got back to the sort of numbers it had in the Sixties, it might well do.
I am a rather puritanical Christian, so prefer a far simpler architectural and litergical style, but am very saddened to see such loss of artistic and cultural heritage. It is part of all our history, not just the French.
I love medieval architecture, and especially Gothic. What I can't stand is the gilding and paint of Catholic churches - Pugin's interior's make me feel sick. It's almost as though they distract from the beauty of the medieval stoneworkers' and carvers' craft.
Having said that, many small churches were ruined by Victorian improvements.
I think that British churches were also very gilded and painted until the Puritans whitewashed over them and removed the idolatrous statuary.
But all I can say is that the gilding isn't really my thing: the architecture is.
It is not my thing either. But if you want to see the most over the top gilding ever, go to the Hermitage in Leningrad. You'll need sunglasses indoors.
St Mary’s Undercroft in Westminster is special too.
An Edwardian copy of Byzantium, restored with extra gilding by the Victorians
Ah, the Victorians - they knew how to gild, that's for sure.
I haven't been posting much recently as I am concentrating on getting my diabetes under control with weight loss and exercise. I was diagnosed with diabetes in 2009 and to date have not required medication but as is so often the case, I took liberties with bread, biscuits, chocolates, cakes and fizzy drinks and need to regain control. Have lost 1 stone in last three weeks so doing ok so far.
As for politics I have decided to let it all flow over me for a while, and while I do lurk from time to time, I am not posting as frequently but rest assured it is not because I am upset or out of sorts with anyone, it is just maybe time for a little rest
I have not gone away folks
Have a look at low carb/keto diets. People have put T2D into remission with a low carb diet, and lost shedloads of weight. It works.
Yes thank you. I am following a strict diet and am determined to recover the control I have had for the last 10 years
10 kg weight loss is the key to getting remission according to Prof Taylor of the DiRECT trial:
There are other useful positives for blood pressure, and arthritis too in such weight loss.
Keeping it off is the tough bit.
Thanks Dr Foxy. I have lost 7 kg so far and will achieve 10 kg and I appreciate the benefit on blood pressure and my osteoarthritis. It is a no brainer really
Prof Taylor is an enthusiast for his liquid diet, which is rather bland but works, but when I have seen him speak has been quite open that any diet that delivers the weight loss works. He is quite sceptical about exercise as he thinks this inhibits weight loss because of raised metabolism and hunger.
A kg of fat is about 9000 Calories, so to lose 10kg* means consuming 1500 fewer Calories per day for 60 days. Abdominal fat is the bit that matters for diabetes, and waist at belly button level should be less than half of height is a simple metric.
*Initial weight loss is stored glycogen and water, so quicker.
Although presumably the other benefits of exercise shouldn't be discounted.
I'd support 24 hour news being switched off for a few months, just to see whether we all get happier as a result. I've certainly wasted an enormous amount of time since about 2003 watching it.
I have a vague memory that Boris disappeared off the grid in a camper van in the US during a crisis as London mayor.
I am a rather puritanical Christian, so prefer a far simpler architectural and litergical style, but am very saddened to see such loss of artistic and cultural heritage. It is part of all our history, not just the French.
snip Having said that, many small churches were ruined by Victorian improvements.
I think that British churches were also very gilded and painted until the Puritans whitewashed over them and removed the idolatrous statuary.
But all I can say is that the gilding isn't really my thing: the architecture is.
It is not my thing either. But if you want to see the most over the top gilding ever, go to the Hermitage in Leningrad. You'll need sunglasses indoors.
St Mary’s Undercroft in Westminster is special too.
An Edwardian copy of Byzantium, restored with extra gilding by the Victorians
If you want to go in the other direction and just see how putting bits of stone in the right order without any paint can create one of the great buildings, Durham Cathedral is worth the trip no matter where you're starting from.
Comments
There had been but, assuming the BBC stream is live, it looks like they have directed the hoses away from the north tower now, so I assume they feel they have that doused now.
On thread, the Emmanuel bourdon bell in the (I think) south tower of Notre Dame is usually only rung for high days and holy days or, sadly, to mark national tragedies. I hope it has survived. If not, here for your consideration is the bourdon giving it full chat for Palm Sunday : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebig6_SxtzE&t=23s
It’s weird how people have stopped using washing lines.
But of course, that doesn't mean it can't still spread.
You can get an idea with google maps 3d:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cathédrale+Notre-Dame+de+Paris/@48.8538858,2.3470795,191a,35y,104.44h,43.2t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47e671e19ff53a01:0x36401da7abfa068d!8m2!3d48.8529682!4d2.3499021
ctrl-drag with the mouse to reposition the camera angle.
I am assuming no one is risking sending firefighters inside given the vault could collapse at any moment.
https://twitter.com/KoliaDelesalle/status/1117868188534919170?s=20
The only problem is the songbirds. We don't want them in the garden as we have a cat.
What a crass comment.
The most I did for my garden was not cut the grass for 18 months because I refused to pay the additional fee the council imposed for green waste collection. I'd like to think that aided wildlife a little.
Hopefully this will be a similar situation.
We have a folding standing rack that we use inside, as well as the dryer.
https://twitter.com/paris_by_elodie/status/1116248112736215040?s=21
I often wonder what we consider to be socially acceptable, nay moral, in 2019 will be considered as repugnant as smoking, slavery, or putting up a statue to the likes of Colston or Rhodes in 2119. Perhaps the idea that reproduction is a good thing and a natural right will be one of them.its really no less against nature than many of the biological facts sjws want us to ignore today.
New beginings and all that
"No matter how small one's garden one should always set aside at least half an acre for trees."
Then check out what he is referring to.
Certainly I would not want to be in their shoes right now, whether they were negligent or not.
I have 4. I still have songbirds as the cats spend their days sleeping and demanding food. The nest boxes are in the front where no cats roam and every year I get a new family of blue tits singing outside the bedroom window.
I also have toads and there are foxes all over the place.
Why would anyone speculate about *that* particular action haunting them for the rest of their life? Unless, of course...
I hope that it can be repaired. And while the French are well able to do this, I'm sure, if there is technical expertise or help we can offer, we should do so.
I agree with you btw. I just think depending on the extent of the damage there may be sufficient anger to start a witch hunt.
Conservative membership rises to 150,000. Most parties don't complain about increased membership.
Although in both cases while the influx greatly expanded and will expand the power and influence of one faction within the party, that faction is probably already in the ascendent. Definitely for the Tories since we know most Tory members are gung ho for no deal (no, not all, but even BigG admits they are the largest group), and in Labour's case since Corbyn won among 2015 members as well clearly the entryism helped but was not the cause of the direction they headed in.
An Edwardian copy of Byzantium, restored with extra gilding by the Victorians
Boris or Jacobthe leadership contest, how is the line going to held on only 2 going through from the MPs?@EuropeElects
38 minutes ago
UK, Opinium poll:
European Election
LAB-S&D: 29% (-1)
CON-ECR: 17% (-7)
UKIP-ENF: 13% (-5)
BREXIT-EFDD: 12% (+12)
LDEM-ALDE: 10%
SNP-G/EFA: 6% (+2)
GREENS-G/EFA: 6% (-2)
ChUK-*: 4% (+4)
PC-G/EFA: 1%
+/- 28-30/03/2019
Field work: 09-12/04/2019
Sample: 2,007"