I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds annual fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
My understanding is that as PM he has a diplomatic passport that is carried by one of his entourage and he is not allowed to keep himself. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
This is a genuinely stupid idea that will piss off a lot of people unnecessarily. It will also be ignored on a massive scale and be impossible to police. It is the very essence of bad law.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
I don't understand this, nobody in their right mind burns unseasoned wood anyway. All the heat goes to waste boiling the water, and it clogs up your chimney.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
My understanding is that as PM he has a diplomatic passport that is carried by one of his entourage and he is not allowed to keep himself. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.
If he has a diplomatic passport, he still has a passport. Not sure if that means he's not allowed a regular one or not but pedantically that's not what you said.
Fun fact is that the Queen does not have a passport. She's one of the only (if not the only) people in the world who can't have one and doesn't need one.
My PB political opinion scraper-bot has just exploded. Opinions which deny they are opinions. Comments that claim they are not comments. Is this the new Starmer Labour?
Interesting. That looks to either be a one-off or a mock-up. I have been told (by somebody who really should know) that the blue passports will not be ready until the summer....
Interesting. That looks to either be a one-off or a mock-up. I have been told (by somebody who really should know) that the blue passports will not be ready until the summer....
My understanding is that as PM he has a diplomatic passport that is carried by one of his entourage and he is not allowed to keep himself. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.
If he has a diplomatic passport, he still has a passport. Not sure if that means he's not allowed a regular one or not but pedantically that's not what you said.
Fun fact is that the Queen does not have a passport. She's one of the only (if not the only) people in the world who can't have one and doesn't need one.
I said he’s not allowed a passport. If his entourage have diplomatic papers on is behalf, he does not have it.
But this is probably a prototype anyway faked up for a photo op.
My understanding is that as PM he has a diplomatic passport that is carried by one of his entourage and he is not allowed to keep himself. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.
If he has a diplomatic passport, he still has a passport. Not sure if that means he's not allowed a regular one or not but pedantically that's not what you said.
Fun fact is that the Queen does not have a passport. She's one of the only (if not the only) people in the world who can't have one and doesn't need one.
True, the Queen doesn't need a special permit from herself to travel.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
I don't understand this, nobody in their right mind burns unseasoned wood anyway. All the heat goes to waste boiling the water, and it clogs up your chimney.
Like a lot of bad legislation it sounds like something a civil servant has been itching to do for years, patiently waiting for a minister with no ideas of their own.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
I don't understand this, nobody in their right mind burns unseasoned wood anyway. All the heat goes to waste boiling the water, and it clogs up your chimney.
Absolutely. And if anyone does, this law isn't going to stop them.
Interesting. That looks to either be a one-off or a mock-up. I have been told (by somebody who really should know) that the blue passports will not be ready until the summer....
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
These exceptions are exceptions - Heritage railways should pay an annual fee for a license to do other than the law. That fee when it was long-established would be small, but if you wanted to apply for such a license to (say) drive sharabangs on English roads then the fee would be very large in the first year, until we got used to Welsh caravaners...
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
If they touch heritage railways I'm going to go postal.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
This is a genuinely stupid idea that will piss off a lot of people unnecessarily. It will also be ignored on a massive scale and be impossible to police. It is the very essence of bad law.
Completely agree.
And it will increase pollution by the insistence on kiln dried logs which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve. Bonkers.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
Hook them back up to the official National Rail network with a proper train service!
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
If they touch heritage railways I'm going to go postal.
I don't think the royal mail network has either the coverage or the right gauge. Certainly their tunnels don't have the height clearance.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds annual fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
I don't recall "whooping with metropolitan glee" (all that illustrates is your ignorance of urban life and concerns) but it's quite clear what is being proposed is what you get from a bad Government - bad legislation.
The main cause of poor air quality in London isn't cars in general but diesel vehicles in particular - modern petrol vehicles are much cleaner and more efficient. The fact remains, and it bears repeating, wood burning stoves and ovens in London exist and contribute to levels of PM 2.5 particulates which are especially harmful.
I agree London can and should be doing more - we have a Mayoral election coming up and I'd like to think each candidate will be challenged on air quality issues. We have the ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) in London already and that should be expanded and more robustly policed.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Roa
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
These exceptions are exceptions - Heritage railways should pay an annual fee for a license to do other than the law. That fee when it was long-established would be small, but if you wanted to apply for such a license to (say) drive sharabangs on English roads then the fee would be very large in the first year, until we got used to Welsh caravaners...
You want all the heritage railways to close?
Most are charities run by volunteers. They run on a shoestring.
So the UK leaving the EU does have similar effects that Slovenia had when it left Yugoslavia, the remaining members start bickering over finance holes and power struggles.
Interesting. That looks to either be a one-off or a mock-up. I have been told (by somebody who really should know) that the blue passports will not be ready until the summer....
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
Hook them back up to the official National Rail network with a proper train service!
It's the idea and looks of Victorian Steam Trains that make them a tourist attraction.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
If they touch heritage railways I'm going to go postal.
Steam trains are more polluting than diesel trains which are more polluting than electric trains.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Roa
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
These exceptions are exceptions - Heritage railways should pay an annual fee for a license to do other than the law. That fee when it was long-established would be small, but if you wanted to apply for such a license to (say) drive sharabangs on English roads then the fee would be very large in the first year, until we got used to Welsh caravaners...
You want all the heritage railways to close?
Most are charities run by volunteers. They run on a shoestring.
Not at all - I'd encourage the government to make one-off payments to cover the initial set-up fee for those railways.
The license to do other than the law is (in my mind) the right way forwards though
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
This is a genuinely stupid idea that will piss off a lot of people unnecessarily. It will also be ignored on a massive scale and be impossible to police. It is the very essence of bad law.
Completely agree.
And it will increase pollution by the insistence on kiln dried logs which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve. Bonkers.
I think naturally seasoned wood is permitted.
If those net bags you see at petrol stations are completely unseasoned selling them as firewood is pretty much fraudulent anyway and I don't see a problem with putting a stop to that.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
If they touch heritage railways I'm going to go postal.
Steam trains are more polluting than diesel trains which are more polluting than electric trains.
My understanding is that as PM he has a diplomatic passport that is carried by one of his entourage and he is not allowed to keep himself. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.
If he has a diplomatic passport, he still has a passport. Not sure if that means he's not allowed a regular one or not but pedantically that's not what you said.
Fun fact is that the Queen does not have a passport. She's one of the only (if not the only) people in the world who can't have one and doesn't need one.
True, the Queen doesn't need a special permit from herself to travel.
She still needs something to put her visas in - for all those multifarious countries that demand one.....
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
If they touch heritage railways I'm going to go postal.
I don't think the royal mail network has either the coverage or the right gauge. Certainly their tunnels don't have the height clearance.
Which, ironically enough, is now a heritage railway itself!
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
Hook them back up to the official National Rail network with a proper train service!
It's the idea and looks of Victorian Steam Trains that make them a tourist attraction.
The A4 class - Mallard et al - are most definitely not Victorian.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
If they touch heritage railways I'm going to go postal.
Steam trains are more polluting than diesel trains which are more polluting than electric trains.
Even more than the coal they burn - they set lots of trackside fires with the sparks that issue forth.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Roa
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
These exceptions are exceptions - Heritage railways should pay an annual fee for a license to do other than the law. That fee when it was long-established would be small, but if you wanted to apply for such a license to (say) drive sharabangs on English roads then the fee would be very large in the first year, until we got used to Welsh caravaners...
You want all the heritage railways to close?
Most are charities run by volunteers. They run on a shoestring.
Not at all - I'd encourage the government to make one-off payments to cover the initial set-up fee for those railways.
The license to do other than the law is (in my mind) the right way forwards though
A few old steam trains puffing up and down a handful of lines during summer weekends makes the jackest of jack shit of a difference to climate change but gives pleasure to millions. They also are a living, breathing reminder of our history and heritage and how we got to where we are today. They inspire many (including me) into engineering.
Touching them at all would be vengeful, vitrolic and mean-spirited. They should have absolute exemption.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
Hook them back up to the official National Rail network with a proper train service!
It's the idea and looks of Victorian Steam Trains that make them a tourist attraction.
The A4 class - Mallard et al - are most definitely not Victorian.
The majority of narrow gauge lines are though. Even the ones with some newer locomotives as well, e.g. the Ffestiniog.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
Hook them back up to the official National Rail network with a proper train service!
It's the idea and looks of Victorian Steam Trains that make them a tourist attraction.
The A4 class - Mallard et al - are most definitely not Victorian.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Roa
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
These exceptions are exceptions - Heritage railways should pay an annual fee for a license to do other than the law. That fee when it was long-established would be small, but if you wanted to apply for such a license to (say) drive sharabangs on English roads then the fee would be very large in the first year, until we got used to Welsh caravaners...
You want all the heritage railways to close?
Most are charities run by volunteers. They run on a shoestring.
Not at all - I'd encourage the government to make one-off payments to cover the initial set-up fee for those railways.
The license to do other than the law is (in my mind) the right way forwards though
A few old steam trains puffing up and down a handful of lines during summer weekends makes the jackest of jack shit of a difference to climate change but gives pleasure to millions. They also are a living, breathing reminder of our history and heritage and how we got to where we are today. They inspire many (including me) into engineering.
Touching them at all would be vengeful, vitrolic and mean-spirited. They should have absolute exemption.
No questions. No caveats.
I'd prefer to give them some funds. The case for them though has to be an exception, and exceptions should be dealt with by having a license for the exception. The exceptions should not be part of the law.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Roa
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
These exceptions are exceptions - Heritage railways should pay an annual fee for a license to do other than the law. That fee when it was long-established would be small, but if you wanted to apply for such a license to (say) drive sharabangs on English roads then the fee would be very large in the first year, until we got used to Welsh caravaners...
You want all the heritage railways to close?
Most are charities run by volunteers. They run on a shoestring.
Not at all - I'd encourage the government to make one-off payments to cover the initial set-up fee for those railways.
The license to do other than the law is (in my mind) the right way forwards though
A few old steam trains puffing up and down a handful of lines during summer weekends makes the jackest of jack shit of a difference to climate change but gives pleasure to millions. They also are a living, breathing reminder of our history and heritage and how we got to where we are today. They inspire many (including me) into engineering.
Touching them at all would be vengeful, vitrolic and mean-spirited. They should have absolute exemption.
No questions. No caveats.
This isn't about climate change it's about particles. And all the reports I have seen are about the sake of coal as domestic fuel, so stream trains should be fine.
The fuel legislation is one of the most ill thought pieces of legislation for ages.
This is pissing off quite a lot of people for no real gain by HMG and worse there are so many illogical aspects to the policy BoJo and his boys just look stupid.
The fuel legislation is one of the most ill thought pieces of legislation for ages.
This is pissing off quite a lot of people for no real gain by HMG and worse there are so many illogical aspects to the policy BoJo and his boys just look stupid.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
This is a genuinely stupid idea that will piss off a lot of people unnecessarily. It will also be ignored on a massive scale and be impossible to police. It is the very essence of bad law.
Completely agree.
And it will increase pollution by the insistence on kiln dried logs which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve. Bonkers.
I think naturally seasoned wood is permitted.
If those net bags you see at petrol stations are completely unseasoned selling them as firewood is pretty much fraudulent anyway and I don't see a problem with putting a stop to that.
Kiln dried was definitely in the first reports and in the announcement. Struggling to find it now and I looked at the Govt paper and couldn't find it so if true better news.
Re your 2nd point agree totally.
The logic on the quantity purchased seems to be if you buy more than 2 cu m you will season so ok and if you buy a little you intend to use now. That makes sense, but then as you say selling a small bag of unseasoned wood for burning is fraudulent as no reasonable person goes to a petrol station and buys 10 logs to burn in 2 years time do they?
I trust we're all resisting the temptation to gloat.
Of course plugging the financial gap left by the UK was always going to be an issue for the EU despite our £39 billion divorce pay out. Naturally those who have done well out of the EU in the past aren't going to be happy getting less or becoming contributors but that may be how it has to be.
My understanding is that as PM he has a diplomatic passport that is carried by one of his entourage and he is not allowed to keep himself. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.
If he has a diplomatic passport, he still has a passport. Not sure if that means he's not allowed a regular one or not but pedantically that's not what you said.
Fun fact is that the Queen does not have a passport. She's one of the only (if not the only) people in the world who can't have one and doesn't need one.
I suppose her Britannic Majesty requests passage to travel without let or hindrance herself. Would be a bit silly to have a book with a message from yourself to show people.
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once again, I never said wood burning was the "main cause" but it is a cause and it does happen in urban areas.
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for c 4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
If they touch heritage railways I'm going to go postal.
Steam trains are more polluting than diesel trains which are more polluting than electric trains.
Who travels on electric trains for fun though?
(Well, apart from you, obviously.)
Volk's Electric Railway, man! And definitely Victorian
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
I trust we're all resisting the temptation to gloat.
Of course plugging the financial gap left by the UK was always going to be an issue for the EU despite our £39 billion divorce pay out. Naturally those who have done well out of the EU in the past aren't going to be happy getting less or becoming contributors but that may be how it has to be.
And refusing the UK a Canada deal is going to make the divisions even worse
I expect Boris will be quietly confident he will get his deal this year
The fuel legislation is one of the most ill thought pieces of legislation for ages.
This is pissing off quite a lot of people for no real gain by HMG and worse there are so many illogical aspects to the policy BoJo and his boys just look stupid.
But Field Marshall - they are stupid.
By this yard stick undeniably so Teacher
But it will of course get worse, how long until some XR fanatic decides to test a ban on bonfires on bonfire night or charcoal in barbecues. On the governments own logic these should ne banned.
This will quickly become government by inflicting misery
I trust we're all resisting the temptation to gloat.
Of course plugging the financial gap left by the UK was always going to be an issue for the EU despite our £39 billion divorce pay out. Naturally those who have done well out of the EU in the past aren't going to be happy getting less or becoming contributors but that may be how it has to be.
And refusing the UK a Canada deal is going to make the divisions even worse
I expect Boris will be quietly confident he will get his deal this year
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
At the same time our local signalman allowed me to pull the levers on the signal for the Flying Scotsman to pass again in full steam. Can you imagine that happening today.
Hamburg votes on Sunday and it looks for a change as though the SPD may have something to celebrate but there are two vastly conflicting polls out there so make of these what you will.
The Hamburg University poll has the SPD on 34%, the Greens on 32%, CDU on 12% and Linke on 7%. This would have the SPD-Green coalition an increased majority.
The INSA poll has the SPD on 38%, Greens on 23%, CDU on 13% and Linke on 8%.
Somebody is going to have some egg on their gesicht come Sunday evening.
Another quick note - poll conducted in Ireland on a snap second GE would have SF on 35%, FG on 18% and FF on 17% so with a full slate of candidates that would put SF on 60-62 seats and make it almost impossible to form a Government without them. That might exercise the political leaders on their weekend.
To no one's surprise, it now seems Martin and Varadkar are to have an "exploratory" meeting. Varadkar continues to dance on the head of the "going back into Government" pin but it may be we get an FF-Green Government with FG support which would command a majority in the Dail.
The director leaves his job accused of bullying and a toxic management culture & immediately gets appointed to run the ...err.... Samaritans.
It is reported to the Charity Commissioners in 2018, who do nothing: "We should have followed up on the complaint, and that did not happen.” said the Charity Commissioners Director of Operations.
I trust we're all resisting the temptation to gloat.
Of course plugging the financial gap left by the UK was always going to be an issue for the EU despite our £39 billion divorce pay out. Naturally those who have done well out of the EU in the past aren't going to be happy getting less or becoming contributors but that may be how it has to be.
It will all go wrong for the EU. Precisely the factor that made me vote leave.
It just has to go wrong until they somehow arrange that there is a HUGE subsidy to the South and the East.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
At the same time our local signalman allowed me to pull the levers on the signal for the Flying Scotsman to pass again in full steam. Can you imagine that happening today.
Lifetime memories
You'll outdo all that with a cutting remark on PB I'm sure. Mr Smithson, doffing the cap at the annual ceremony. Lifetime Smithson award for nearly being as wise as he is.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
I was on a London rooftop (as was everyone in London, by the look of it) when the last three Concordes came in to land at Heathrow for the final time.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
At the same time our local signalman allowed me to pull the levers on the signal for the Flying Scotsman to pass again in full steam. Can you imagine that happening today.
Lifetime memories
First time I ever flew was when I was 10 on a long flight to move to Australia. At one point in the flight the stewardess came and asked if my younger brother and I would like to go to the cockpit and speak to the Captain.
I was very impressed with the cockpit and the amount of controls there and we had a nice brief chat with the captain.
I couldn't imagine if they'd still offer that to kids flying today. I imagine no which is a shame. Maybe they do but it was a great opportunity either way.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
I was on a London rooftop (as was everyone in London, by the look of it) when the last three Concordes came in to land at Heathrow for the final time.
Is there something you'd love to see in your lifetime?
For me it's ET contact. Next best is us just going out into space.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
At the same time our local signalman allowed me to pull the levers on the signal for the Flying Scotsman to pass again in full steam. Can you imagine that happening today.
Lifetime memories
First time I ever flew was when I was 10 on a long flight to move to Australia. At one point in the flight the stewardess came and asked if my younger brother and I would like to go to the cockpit and speak to the Captain.
I was very impressed with the cockpit and the amount of controls there and we had a nice brief chat with the captain.
I couldn't imagine if they'd still offer that to kids flying today. I imagine no which is a shame. Maybe they do but it was a great opportunity either way.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds annual fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
I don't recall "whooping with metropolitan glee" (all that illustrates is your ignorance of urban life and concerns) but it's quite clear what is being proposed is what you get from a bad Government - bad legislation.
The main cause of poor air quality in London isn't cars in general but diesel vehicles in particular - modern petrol vehicles are much cleaner and more efficient. The fact remains, and it bears repeating, wood burning stoves and ovens in London exist and contribute to levels of PM 2.5 particulates which are especially harmful.
I agree London can and should be doing more - we have a Mayoral election coming up and I'd like to think each candidate will be challenged on air quality issues. We have the ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) in London already and that should be expanded and more robustly policed.
Is it not the case that the really serious pollution comes from lorries and buses?
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
I was on a London rooftop (as was everyone in London, by the look of it) when the last three Concordes came in to land at Heathrow for the final time.
Is there something you'd love to see in your lifetime?
For me it's ET contact. Next best is us just going out into space.
My film trilogy is about someone whose sole wish in life is to know if we are alone in the Universe.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
I was on a London rooftop (as was everyone in London, by the look of it) when the last three Concordes came in to land at Heathrow for the final time.
Is there something you'd love to see in your lifetime?
For me it's ET contact. Next best is us just going out into space.
My film trilogy is about someone whose sole wish in life is to know if we are alone in the Universe.
There's a lot of me in there.
I'd settle for useable fusion power.
That'd be amazing. Massively puzzling for Mssr Fermi mind you.
How’s about the parents who choose not to participate, and instead home school a group of kids with their own private tutor?
I see what you're doing there. I say Yes to that and then bang there's a follow up -
"So then they will just create their own private schools, won't they?"
So it's a No. Home schooling allowed only in very precise and restricted circumstances. As in Germany.
No offence at all - it's fine - but I sense that you are hellbent on wonking a way out of this idea. Why? Because you don't want an omelette.
Your scheme won’t work because it relies on the middle classes giving up the advantages they have when it comes to their children’s education.
For many of these people, the education of the children is the most important thing in their lives, and they are willing to sacrifice almost anything in pursuit of it.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
At the same time our local signalman allowed me to pull the levers on the signal for the Flying Scotsman to pass again in full steam. Can you imagine that happening today.
Lifetime memories
First time I ever flew was when I was 10 on a long flight to move to Australia. At one point in the flight the stewardess came and asked if my younger brother and I would like to go to the cockpit and speak to the Captain.
I was very impressed with the cockpit and the amount of controls there and we had a nice brief chat with the captain.
I couldn't imagine if they'd still offer that to kids flying today. I imagine no which is a shame. Maybe they do but it was a great opportunity either way.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
I was on a London rooftop (as was everyone in London, by the look of it) when the last three Concordes came in to land at Heathrow for the final time.
Is there something you'd love to see in your lifetime?
For me it's ET contact. Next best is us just going out into space.
My film trilogy is about someone whose sole wish in life is to know if we are alone in the Universe.
There's a lot of me in there.
I'd settle for useable fusion power.
That'd be amazing. Massively puzzling for Mssr Fermi mind you.
PS What is your film trilogy?
Just a little first date popcorn movie sci-fi rom com project I'm playing with. It's full of aliens. The SFX company that did the Dementors and Groot (amongst other things) is talking....
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
I was on a London rooftop (as was everyone in London, by the look of it) when the last three Concordes came in to land at Heathrow for the final time.
Is there something you'd love to see in your lifetime?
For me it's ET contact. Next best is us just going out into space.
My film trilogy is about someone whose sole wish in life is to know if we are alone in the Universe.
There's a lot of me in there.
I'd settle for useable fusion power.
That'd be amazing. Massively puzzling for Mssr Fermi mind you.
PS What is your film trilogy?
Just a little first date popcorn movie sci-fi rom com project I'm playing with. It's full of aliens. The SFX company that did the Dementors and Groot (amongst other things) is talking....
I couldn't imagine if they'd still offer that to kids flying today. I imagine no which is a shame. Maybe they do but it was a great opportunity either way.
The RAF let me fly a Jetstream on a flight from Finningley to Bruggen when I was a student and wasn't even commissioned. They definitely don't do that any more after a student had to bang out of a Harrier T-Bird and was dragged through the burning wreckage by her chute.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
At the same time our local signalman allowed me to pull the levers on the signal for the Flying Scotsman to pass again in full steam. Can you imagine that happening today.
Lifetime memories
First time I ever flew was when I was 10 on a long flight to move to Australia. At one point in the flight the stewardess came and asked if my younger brother and I would like to go to the cockpit and speak to the Captain.
I was very impressed with the cockpit and the amount of controls there and we had a nice brief chat with the captain.
I couldn't imagine if they'd still offer that to kids flying today. I imagine no which is a shame. Maybe they do but it was a great opportunity either way.
BA pilots let me sit in the cockpit whilst they were landing the plane at Heathrow when I flew as a child aged 10-12 years old.
The fuel legislation is one of the most ill thought pieces of legislation for ages.
This is pissing off quite a lot of people for no real gain by HMG and worse there are so many illogical aspects to the policy BoJo and his boys just look stupid.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
I was on a London rooftop (as was everyone in London, by the look of it) when the last three Concordes came in to land at Heathrow for the final time.
Is there something you'd love to see in your lifetime?
For me it's ET contact. Next best is us just going out into space.
My film trilogy is about someone whose sole wish in life is to know if we are alone in the Universe.
There's a lot of me in there.
I'd settle for useable fusion power.
That'd be amazing. Massively puzzling for Mssr Fermi mind you.
PS What is your film trilogy?
Just a little first date popcorn movie sci-fi rom com project I'm playing with. It's full of aliens. The SFX company that did the Dementors and Groot (amongst other things) is talking....
Woo... nice. I tried to write a novel once and got nowhere, so I understand some small part of foothills of what's involved. Good luck!
For those that have seen the Mandalorian, it shows how good VFX have become that I had no idea that the majority of backdrops included no on-location filming or actual set structure at all. Obviously you know it isn't an alien planet, but you presume when you see them in a canyon, it is on location (with some green screen) or an office, they built a physical set of one...but no.
The world has come along when from the original star wars were people hand painted the scenes and light-sabers were made by cutting the physical film.
The fuel legislation is one of the most ill thought pieces of legislation for ages.
This is pissing off quite a lot of people for no real gain by HMG and worse there are so many illogical aspects to the policy BoJo and his boys just look stupid.
Must be the EU's fault, surely?
Looks like they have lots of problems of their own to be honest
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
At the same time our local signalman allowed me to pull the levers on the signal for the Flying Scotsman to pass again in full steam. Can you imagine that happening today.
Lifetime memories
First time I ever flew was when I was 10 on a long flight to move to Australia. At one point in the flight the stewardess came and asked if my younger brother and I would like to go to the cockpit and speak to the Captain.
I was very impressed with the cockpit and the amount of controls there and we had a nice brief chat with the captain.
I couldn't imagine if they'd still offer that to kids flying today. I imagine no which is a shame. Maybe they do but it was a great opportunity either way.
BA pilots let me sit in the cockpit whilst they were landing the plane at Heathrow when I flew as a child aged 10-12 years old.
The director leaves his job accused of bullying and a toxic management culture & immediately gets appointed to run the ...err.... Samaritans.
It is reported to the Charity Commissioners in 2018, who do nothing: "We should have followed up on the complaint, and that did not happen.” said the Charity Commissioners Director of Operations.
As a sector it seems to have lost all moral purpose and values. From chuggers to sex exploitation to uncontrolled greed it’s become a playground for the morally repugnant. They make the tobacco industry look good.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
At the same time our local signalman allowed me to pull the levers on the signal for the Flying Scotsman to pass again in full steam. Can you imagine that happening today.
Lifetime memories
First time I ever flew was when I was 10 on a long flight to move to Australia. At one point in the flight the stewardess came and asked if my younger brother and I would like to go to the cockpit and speak to the Captain.
I was very impressed with the cockpit and the amount of controls there and we had a nice brief chat with the captain.
I couldn't imagine if they'd still offer that to kids flying today. I imagine no which is a shame. Maybe they do but it was a great opportunity either way.
BA pilots let me sit in the cockpit whilst they were landing the plane at Heathrow when I flew as a child aged 10-12 years old.
So the Russians are backing the two candidates that will be most divisive, and I expect the most likely to lead to a contested result.
Meanwhile the Senate is refusing the pass election security bills, the FEC doesn't have a quorum, and Trump fired the acting DNI Maguire for doing his job and letting his staff brief the intelligence committees as they are legally required to do.
So the Russians are backing the two candidates that will be most divisive, and I expect the most likely to lead to a contested result.
Meanwhile the Senate is refusing the pass election security bills, the FEC doesn't have a quorum, and Trump fired the acting DNI Maguire for doing his job and letting his staff brief the intelligence committees as they are legally required to do.
What a mess.
Totally unsurprising. They were doing this way back even before Trump announced in 2015.
As for...
During this week’s debate, Bernie Sanders suggested “vicious attacks” against Nevada’s Culinary Union, which were blamed on his supporters, may be coming from Russia.
Like Corbyn, he has attracted a lot of the proper communist / anarchist / hard left wingnut types, who have a history of the anti-capitalist violence and harassment, so it could easily be them rather than the Russians.
As a schoolboy in Berwick on Tweed in the late fifties I watched 'Mallard' herself come past our classrooms. Indeed we were given time off to watch this magnificient locomotive pass in full steam.
Never to be forgotten
What next though?
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
I was on a London rooftop (as was everyone in London, by the look of it) when the last three Concordes came in to land at Heathrow for the final time.
Is there something you'd love to see in your lifetime?
For me it's ET contact. Next best is us just going out into space.
My film trilogy is about someone whose sole wish in life is to know if we are alone in the Universe.
There's a lot of me in there.
I'd settle for useable fusion power.
That'd be amazing. Massively puzzling for Mssr Fermi mind you.
PS What is your film trilogy?
Just a little first date popcorn movie sci-fi rom com project I'm playing with. It's full of aliens. The SFX company that did the Dementors and Groot (amongst other things) is talking....
Woo... nice. I tried to write a novel once and got nowhere, so I understand some small part of foothills of what's involved. Good luck!
The director leaves his job accused of bullying and a toxic management culture & immediately gets appointed to run the ...err.... Samaritans.
It is reported to the Charity Commissioners in 2018, who do nothing: "We should have followed up on the complaint, and that did not happen.” said the Charity Commissioners Director of Operations.
As a sector it seems to have lost all moral purpose and values. From chuggers to sex exploitation to uncontrolled greed it’s become a playground for the morally repugnant. They make the tobacco industry look good.
Chuggers are a right royal pain in the arse (especially the ones that chap your door) but I wouldn't put them on a moral plane with the sex exploiters!
I don't believe that the main cause of particulates in London air is wood-burning. Prove it.
The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah was due to the fact that she walked to school along the London South Circular Road. The particulates along the South Circular Road are not caused by wood-burners.
You did not mention the rural poor -- but that is because you have not understood that most people in poorer, rural parts of the country are the ones who burn wood. It is not as you suggest because they are living "a romanticised idyll", it is because they are poor and live in damp old houses.
Once
All this bad-tempered exchange illustrates is the gulf between "town" and "country" that exists and the misconceptions on both sides.
London is welcome to make laws for London. If there were a serious problem with wood-burning in East Ham, then the Local Authority has the power to create a Smoke Control Area and restrict wood-burning.
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
Unintended consequences:
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
If they touch heritage railways I'm going to go postal.
Steam trains are more polluting than diesel trains which are more polluting than electric trains.
Who travels on electric trains for fun though?
(Well, apart from you, obviously.)
Class 81s through the tunnel out of Birmingham New Street used to be fun!
The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) has expressed concern at the number of coronavirus cases with no clear link to China or other confirmed cases.
I trust we're all resisting the temptation to gloat.
Of course plugging the financial gap left by the UK was always going to be an issue for the EU despite our £39 billion divorce pay out. Naturally those who have done well out of the EU in the past aren't going to be happy getting less or becoming contributors but that may be how it has to be.
It will all go wrong for the EU. Precisely the factor that made me vote leave.
It just has to go wrong until they somehow arrange that there is a HUGE subsidy to the South and the East.
The poor in France and Germany will get poorer.
If EU economies were still growing at 3-4% a year this really would not be an issue. It is the relative economic failure of the EU that makes fixing the budget so hard. Those who are not yet caught up want the money they were promised. Those at the top facing tight budgets at home are not willing to pay in to something that is not giving them the growth they hoped for. And Italy is an unending crisis.
If we had remained members our politicians would have been try to work out how they sold larger contributions and smaller “rewards”. Thank goodness we are not.
During this week’s debate, Bernie Sanders suggested “vicious attacks” against Nevada’s Culinary Union, which were blamed on his supporters, may be coming from Russia.
Like Corbyn, he has attracted a lot of the proper communist / anarchist / hard left wingnut types, who have a history of the anti-capitalist violence and harassment, so it could easily be them rather than the Russians.
I've no doubt it is "them", but I've also no doubt that Russians amplify it as well.
FWIW I'm pretty sure similar things are happening more or less continuously with UK politics now, you look at contentious issues and how false stories are radidly spread and it's hard to believe it's organic.
So the UK leaving the EU does have similar effects that Slovenia had when it left Yugoslavia, the remaining members start bickering over finance holes and power struggles.
I'm sure they'll work it out, bickering about money was always to be expected.
The director leaves his job accused of bullying and a toxic management culture & immediately gets appointed to run the ...err.... Samaritans.
It is reported to the Charity Commissioners in 2018, who do nothing: "We should have followed up on the complaint, and that did not happen.” said the Charity Commissioners Director of Operations.
As a sector it seems to have lost all moral purpose and values. From chuggers to sex exploitation to uncontrolled greed it’s become a playground for the morally repugnant. They make the tobacco industry look good.
Chuggers are a right royal pain in the arse (especially the ones that chap your door) but I wouldn't put them on a moral plane with the sex exploiters!
It’s not the chuggers themselves, they are just doing a job. It’s the cynical bastards who think that is the right way to generate money and employ them.
So the Russians are backing the two candidates that will be most divisive, and I expect the most likely to lead to a contested result.
Meanwhile the Senate is refusing the pass election security bills, the FEC doesn't have a quorum, and Trump fired the acting DNI Maguire for doing his job and letting his staff brief the intelligence committees as they are legally required to do.
What a mess.
Totally unsurprising. They were doing this way back even before Trump announced in 2015.
As for...
During this week’s debate, Bernie Sanders suggested “vicious attacks” against Nevada’s Culinary Union, which were blamed on his supporters, may be coming from Russia.
Like Corbyn, he has attracted a lot of the proper communist / anarchist / hard left wingnut types, who have a history of the anti-capitalist violence and harassment, so it could easily be them rather than the Russians.
It could be them *as well as* the Russians. It could also be them *amplified* by the Russians or by Russian bot retweeters. We know these techniques have been used in the past. Thank heavens none of that happens here, as is no doubt proved by the report Boris has somehow forgotten to publish.
I trust we're all resisting the temptation to gloat.
Of course plugging the financial gap left by the UK was always going to be an issue for the EU despite our £39 billion divorce pay out. Naturally those who have done well out of the EU in the past aren't going to be happy getting less or becoming contributors but that may be how it has to be.
It will all go wrong for the EU. Precisely the factor that made me vote leave.
It just has to go wrong until they somehow arrange that there is a HUGE subsidy to the South and the East.
The poor in France and Germany will get poorer.
If EU economies were still growing at 3-4% a year this really would not be an issue. It is the relative economic failure of the EU that makes fixing the budget so hard. Those who are not yet caught up want the money they were promised. Those at the top facing tight budgets at home are not willing to pay in to something that is not giving them the growth they hoped for. And Italy is an unending crisis.
If we had remained members our politicians would have been try to work out how they sold larger contributions and smaller “rewards”. Thank goodness we are not.
Comments
Instead of which, the Westminster Government has proposed a ridiculous piece of legislation that applies everywhere -- including rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
It is accompanied by whoops of metropolitan glee that London air quality is being tackled.
The whole thing is a ridiculous charade -- in which the almost voiceless rural poor are made scapegoats for wealthy metropolitan car owners.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, the main cause of London's poor air quality is cars.
You could slap a 1000 pounds annual fee for owning a car in London. That will fix the problem. Of course, the losers there are not voiceless.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1230926968968736768
1) Heritage railways. Where will they get coal? Will they have to convert to oil?
2) Canal boats. They usually burn wood in solid fuel stoves. Kiln dried is harder to get and generally more expensive.
3) Homes off the gas grid. They will have to burn either bottled gas or oil for central heating, and will find it more difficult to burn wood (which is more environmentally friendly) to reduce their consumption of these expensive fuels.
4) It will make wood burning less efficient if the wood is dried out using gas in advance.
It’s virtue signalling with a lack of forethought.
Fun fact is that the Queen does not have a passport. She's one of the only (if not the only) people in the world who can't have one and doesn't need one.
But this is probably a prototype anyway faked up for a photo op.
And it will increase pollution by the insistence on kiln dried logs which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve. Bonkers.
The main cause of poor air quality in London isn't cars in general but diesel vehicles in particular - modern petrol vehicles are much cleaner and more efficient. The fact remains, and it bears repeating, wood burning stoves and ovens in London exist and contribute to levels of PM 2.5 particulates which are especially harmful.
I agree London can and should be doing more - we have a Mayoral election coming up and I'd like to think each candidate will be challenged on air quality issues. We have the ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) in London already and that should be expanded and more robustly policed.
Most are charities run by volunteers. They run on a shoestring.
https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1230938495314800640
So the UK leaving the EU does have similar effects that Slovenia had when it left Yugoslavia, the remaining members start bickering over finance holes and power struggles.
The license to do other than the law is (in my mind) the right way forwards though
If those net bags you see at petrol stations are completely unseasoned selling them as firewood is pretty much fraudulent anyway and I don't see a problem with putting a stop to that.
It is a look typical of someone questioning themselves. 'What have I done'?
(Well, apart from you, obviously.)
Like the US.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1230930196653629445?s=09
Touching them at all would be vengeful, vitrolic and mean-spirited. They should have absolute exemption.
No questions. No caveats.
Never to be forgotten
This is pissing off quite a lot of people for no real gain by HMG and worse there are so many illogical aspects to the policy BoJo and his boys just look stupid.
Re your 2nd point agree totally.
The logic on the quantity purchased seems to be if you buy more than 2 cu m you will season so ok and if you buy a little you intend to use now. That makes sense, but then as you say selling a small bag of unseasoned wood for burning is fraudulent as no reasonable person goes to a petrol station and buys 10 logs to burn in 2 years time do they?
The UK's largesse was the glue holding the whole sorry enterprise together. Who knew?
Of course plugging the financial gap left by the UK was always going to be an issue for the EU despite our £39 billion divorce pay out. Naturally those who have done well out of the EU in the past aren't going to be happy getting less or becoming contributors but that may be how it has to be.
I remember the Flying Scotsman nipping through Harrow and Wealdstone.
I remember Concorde.
I think I'd prefer the 0.7% or whatever it is of our money to go to something like that rather than foreign aid. If foreign aid actually was foreign aid then it'd be different.
I expect Boris will be quietly confident he will get his deal this year
But it will of course get worse, how long until some XR fanatic decides to test a ban on bonfires on bonfire night or charcoal in barbecues. On the governments own logic these should ne banned.
This will quickly become government by inflicting misery
So much for funboy Boris
Lifetime memories
Hamburg votes on Sunday and it looks for a change as though the SPD may have something to celebrate but there are two vastly conflicting polls out there so make of these what you will.
The Hamburg University poll has the SPD on 34%, the Greens on 32%, CDU on 12% and Linke on 7%. This would have the SPD-Green coalition an increased majority.
The INSA poll has the SPD on 38%, Greens on 23%, CDU on 13% and Linke on 8%.
Somebody is going to have some egg on their gesicht come Sunday evening.
Another quick note - poll conducted in Ireland on a snap second GE would have SF on 35%, FG on 18% and FF on 17% so with a full slate of candidates that would put SF on 60-62 seats and make it almost impossible to form a Government without them. That might exercise the political leaders on their weekend.
To no one's surprise, it now seems Martin and Varadkar are to have an "exploratory" meeting. Varadkar continues to dance on the head of the "going back into Government" pin but it may be we get an FF-Green Government with FG support which would command a majority in the Dail.
Another extraordinary story from UK Charities
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/21/alzheimers-society-allegedly-paid-out-750000-to-staff
The director leaves his job accused of bullying and a toxic management culture & immediately gets appointed to run the ...err.... Samaritans.
It is reported to the Charity Commissioners in 2018, who do nothing: "We should have followed up on the complaint, and that did not happen.” said the Charity Commissioners Director of Operations.
It just has to go wrong until they somehow arrange that there is a HUGE subsidy to the South and the East.
The poor in France and Germany will get poorer.
Mind you it'll have to be some remark!
I was very impressed with the cockpit and the amount of controls there and we had a nice brief chat with the captain.
I couldn't imagine if they'd still offer that to kids flying today. I imagine no which is a shame. Maybe they do but it was a great opportunity either way.
For me it's ET contact. Next best is us just going out into space.
There's a lot of me in there.
I'd settle for useable fusion power.
PS What is your film trilogy?
For many of these people, the education of the children is the most important thing in their lives, and they are willing to sacrifice almost anything in pursuit of it.
Wouldn't happen in a million years now.
The world has come along when from the original star wars were people hand painted the scenes and light-sabers were made by cutting the physical film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUnxzVOs3rk
She's got no chance.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/feb/21/democrats-prepare-to-vote-in-nevada-amid-controversy-over-donald-trump-roger-stone-and-russia-live-coverage-bernie-sanders
So the Russians are backing the two candidates that will be most divisive, and I expect the most likely to lead to a contested result.
Meanwhile the Senate is refusing the pass election security bills, the FEC doesn't have a quorum, and Trump fired the acting DNI Maguire for doing his job and letting his staff brief the intelligence committees as they are legally required to do.
What a mess.
As for...
During this week’s debate, Bernie Sanders suggested “vicious attacks” against Nevada’s Culinary Union, which were blamed on his supporters, may be coming from Russia.
Like Corbyn, he has attracted a lot of the proper communist / anarchist / hard left wingnut types, who have a history of the anti-capitalist violence and harassment, so it could easily be them rather than the Russians.
If we had remained members our politicians would have been try to work out how they sold larger contributions and smaller “rewards”. Thank goodness we are not.
Good night all
FWIW I'm pretty sure similar things are happening more or less continuously with UK politics now, you look at contentious issues and how false stories are radidly spread and it's hard to believe it's organic.