Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
PB pedantry at its finest.
I’m a teacher: being a pedant is in the job description!
I’m also used to getting answers which are “true but not helpful” as an old teacher of mine used to write in my book when I did the same, which is not quite the same as “accurate but misleading” but comes close.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
You’re reminding me of Ketek and Tygacil
Please don’t do that
*shudders*
Ketek involved fraud, and probably ought never to have been approve, I think ? My point was that even honest companies doing good science tend to be on a hiding to nothing when it comes to developing antibiotics.
Some medical problems require a different model of funding and incentivising research and development.
You should probably make clear that it wasn’t (as far I know) Aventis that was fraudulent.
Although they did claim Sculptra would hit €1bn in sales 😂😂😂
There are pretty good incentives now for antibiotic development
The prevention of extinction of all human life presumably being in the top 5?
Which is why governments come up with incentives to invest
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
In what reasonable world is ‘Shaddup you face’ supposed to keep Joe Dolce in a living forever?
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
Both have average voltage of zero because it's alternating current?
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Down here in warm sunny darkest Cornwall, everything is buzzing, and you can’t move for people and traffic.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Weekend shadow effect. Last 3-5 days subject to revisions. Last 5 days included for completeness. All wrongs reserved. This information is not to be used as information in any way. May contain nuts. May contain nutters. May contain trained, Marxist nutters.
Headline - 6 - lowest Monday or not Seven days - 6 Yesterday - 1
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Down here in warm sunny darkest Cornwall, everything is buzzing, and you can’t move for people and traffic.
So I am told by friends and rellies down there. They are positively gloating. Tho the vulnerable oldsters are less happy about the incomers
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Yes even a city like York is the same ,double decker buses passing with no passengers. Combined with I guess hardly any foreign students attending the two universities , plus the loss of foreign tourists , its business model must be broke.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Yes even a city like York is the same ,double decker buses passing with no passengers. Combined with I guess hardly any foreign students attending the two universities , plus the loss of foreign tourists , its business model must be broke.
Hmmm - send York tens of thousands of high earners on expense accounts?
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Down here in warm sunny darkest Cornwall, everything is buzzing, and you can’t move for people and traffic.
So I am told by friends and rellies down there. They are positively gloating. Tho the vulnerable oldsters are less happy about the incomers
I had a pleasant encounter with a Cornish farmer this morning, who was simultaneously shouting at me and my dog to “geroff my land” and “don’t you come anywhere near me”. I told him he wasn’t being very friendly and he seemed somewhat surprised that friendliness would ever have been my expectation.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
"Come on Eileen" is a marvellous song, strange, clever, poignant, exhilarating
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
Strangely, a song my wife and I both detest. Immediate mute if it ever appears. Very few others I can think of (Good Year for the Roses, the Elvis Costello version and stuff by Catatonia spring to mind, but not much else egts my ire.)
Rather more relaxed about their Genome song, however.
Funny thing is, I went through a period of detesting "Eileen", and then one day I heard a cover version - Nouvelle Vague, I think - and I realised I was entirely wrong, it's a work of genius. Lushly complex in its rhythms, harmonies and cadences.
Chacun a son gout
It's one of those songs that you need a bit of time away from. It is a good tune but has suffered from over-exposure.
Yes, that's probably the process. I had the same experience with the Bee Gees. You heard them so much for so many years you switched off. Tedious pop.
Then you hear a song years later - like "How Deep Is Your Love" - and you realise, wow, it's not cheesy pop, it's actually a masterpiece.
There aren't many bad songs on the SNF soundtrack. The Bee Gees are master songwriters. I love cheesy pop music though, my idea of heaven is a long drive on the motorway with Magic on the radio (preferably before 6am, when there are hardly any adverts, just one banging MOR tune after another).
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Down here in warm sunny darkest Cornwall, everything is buzzing, and you can’t move for people and traffic.
Several hundred thousand travel writers and their Albanian coachmen will do wonders for your local economy.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Yes even a city like York is the same ,double decker buses passing with no passengers. Combined with I guess hardly any foreign students attending the two universities , plus the loss of foreign tourists , its business model must be broke.
Yes, people think this is just a London thing, it's not. It will eventually impact any city in the UK that relies on office workers, commuters, students and/or foreign tourists.
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Why? The money I am not spending on commuting, lunches and nights out with work colleagues will be spent on something else.
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Why? The money I am not spending on commuting, lunches and nights out with work colleagues will be spent on something else.
Yes. Bailing out your newly unemployed friends and relatives
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
Khan is trying to do something about the fresh air, but scenery, quiet, friendliness, wildlife and civility are freely available in our neck of London. Affordable housing not so much, but I am lucky enough that it's affordable for me. If I want proper countryside it's an hour's drive away in Kent - just had a very nice weekend camping but I wouldn't live there if you paid me.
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Why? The money I am not spending on commuting, lunches and nights out with work colleagues will be spent on something else.
Will it be spent on something else in Britain that supports a similar number of jobs? That's key.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Yes even a city like York is the same ,double decker buses passing with no passengers. Combined with I guess hardly any foreign students attending the two universities , plus the loss of foreign tourists , its business model must be broke.
Yes, people think this is just a London thing, it's not. It will eventually impact any city in the UK that relies on office workers, commuters, students and/or foreign tourists.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Yes even a city like York is the same ,double decker buses passing with no passengers. Combined with I guess hardly any foreign students attending the two universities , plus the loss of foreign tourists , its business model must be broke.
Yes, people think this is just a London thing, it's not. It will eventually impact any city in the UK that relies on office workers, commuters, students and/or foreign tourists.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Yes even a city like York is the same ,double decker buses passing with no passengers. Combined with I guess hardly any foreign students attending the two universities , plus the loss of foreign tourists , its business model must be broke.
Yes, people think this is just a London thing, it's not. It will eventually impact any city in the UK that relies on office workers, commuters, students and/or foreign tourists.
There's me thinking Cambridge was aimed at education....
If you live in Cambridge (and your job doesn’t depend on tourism, obvs) that must be a dream come true. It was always murder in summer, second only to Venice.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Yes even a city like York is the same ,double decker buses passing with no passengers. Combined with I guess hardly any foreign students attending the two universities , plus the loss of foreign tourists , its business model must be broke.
House prices in the SW are buoyant.
As some of us predicted would happen. 3 bedrooms in Fulham - or the forever house of your dreams with a couple of acres of rewilded meadow set in idyllic countryside? If you can work from home in the self-contained granny flat and take the train once a week to London (maybe three hours each way - with the dining car and fascinating convivial company coming home) then London is looking at the mother of all re-assessments....
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
In what reasonable world is ‘Shaddup you face’ supposed to keep Joe Dolce in a living forever?
Quite. Maybe not 20 years, but if you only make one hit in all your time maybe you need to find a backup.
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Why? The money I am not spending on commuting, lunches and nights out with work colleagues will be spent on something else.
We have to find a balance. Destroying these places by pulling all of the workers / tourists does nobody any good. But the harsh reality is that so many of these cities had become absurdly expensive as too many workers and tourists in too small a space makes costs prohibitive.
We cannot go back to forcing large numbers of people to make pointless journeys to do a job they can largely do remotely. Regardless of the short-term Rona emergency and the coming medium-term Brexit emergency we have the very long term climate emergency. Things needed to change, have changed and we need to stop trying to change them back. Our economy will adapt to the changed environment and can do so quickly with imagination and support. "Go back to the office so you can buy a Pret" from the PM is beyond stupid.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Yes even a city like York is the same ,double decker buses passing with no passengers. Combined with I guess hardly any foreign students attending the two universities , plus the loss of foreign tourists , its business model must be broke.
House prices in the SW are buoyant.
As some of us predicted would happen. 3 bedrooms in Fulham - or the forever house of your dreams with a couple of acres of rewilded meadow set in idyllic countryside? If you can work from home in the self-contained granny flat and take the train once a week to London (maybe three hours each way - with the dining car and fascinating convivial company coming home) then London is looking at the mother of all re-assessments....
Same on the island. Tons of interest, offers at the asking price being made without viewings, gazumpings, the works.
The island always suffered for the lack of decent jobs; if you can work remotely suddenly it becomes a very attractive place to live.
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Leeds seems fairly normal. Nipped to the city centre and it was near capacity on Saturday, but obviously I don't know if that capacity is viable/loss making. Bars in the streets etc making good trade. There's about as many students as there usually are in summer staying too. However, the little groups of businesses around the office areas must be struggling massively and I wonder how weekday pubs are looking.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Yes even a city like York is the same ,double decker buses passing with no passengers. Combined with I guess hardly any foreign students attending the two universities , plus the loss of foreign tourists , its business model must be broke.
House prices in the SW are buoyant.
As some of us predicted would happen. 3 bedrooms in Fulham - or the forever house of your dreams with a couple of acres of rewilded meadow set in idyllic countryside? If you can work from home in the self-contained granny flat and take the train once a week to London (maybe three hours each way - with the dining car and fascinating convivial company coming home) then London is looking at the mother of all re-assessments....
The nice bits of southern rural/coastal England will do very well. Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Herefordshire, Hampshire.... the cities will suffer, especially university towns and big foreign tourist haunts - Bath, Edinburgh, Oxford.
Nice chunks of the Hebrides and rural Wales should be OK
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
That was very funny! Abbot being shit is nothing whatsoever to do with her being black or being a woman. People sending her abuse for those things need to be stopped and punished. But the vast majority of memes I see mock the fact that she is shit.
if ever anyone was promoted above their level of competence , she takes the title. Though Scottish regional labour have many just as bad.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
(US) Civil War vaccination kits, discovered in a drawer, yield genetic clues to how smallpox was defeated https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/19/civil-war-vaccination-genetic-clues-smallpox/ Ancient-DNA sleuths analyzing Civil War-era artifacts with 21st-century sequencing techniques have recreated five genomes of viral vaccines mustered to fight smallpox in the 1860s, finding they were quite different from those used a century later to finally wipe out the disease.
Remarkably, scientists were able to recover viral molecules from the scabs, blisters, pus, and other biological traces lingering on knife-like lancets, tin boxes, and glass slides tucked into leather vaccination kits discovered at a Philadelphia museum of medical history. Doctors carried these custom-built cases to inoculate soldiers and citizens from smallpox while the North and South fought on nearby battlefields more than 150 years ago. Vaccines were made not in labs or factories then, but instead were grown in a human chain of people exposed to related but mild cousins of smallpox....
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
On a political point, I doubt any Conservative Mayor of London would have done anything much different in response to Covid than Sadiq. I also think conservatives are interested in air quality and housing so again it's hard to see the difference.
London will of course adapt as it always has - as someone said there is no one "London" but many different and varied areas. I'd argue East Ham is a world removed from Beckenham or Sutton (and I've lived in all three).
We aren't all commuters - many walk or cycle to work especially those in Inner London. I suspect those living further out are more dependent on transport links but not all commuters are back office workers so some will still have to travel (and regrettably I'm hearing tales of staff being coerced back to work and being made to work longer shifts).
The impact of the loss of tourism on some towns is of course significant - the stories coming out of Cambridge are deeply worrying.
To take this further, Newham tell me the cost of responding to Covid has been £61 million. The Government has provided £20.5 million. Newham aren't in a bad place financially but other Councils are not so fortunate.
There's a cultural and psychological aspect to this - to what extent are we willing or able to embrace change? There's a huge and understandable desire for the familiar, the comfortable, the reassuring and in a way going back to what we were is our triumph over the virus but history tells us adversity creates opportunity and sometimes genuine progress comes out of disaster.
Trying to understand the future should be what Government is about rather than wasting time and money trying to preserve a past which is no longer sustainable.
On a political point, I doubt any Conservative Mayor of London would have done anything much different in response to Covid than Sadiq. I also think conservatives are interested in air quality and housing so again it's hard to see the difference.
London will of course adapt as it always has - as someone said there is no one "London" but many different and varied areas. I'd argue East Ham is a world removed from Beckenham or Sutton (and I've lived in all three).
We aren't all commuters - many walk or cycle to work especially those in Inner London. I suspect those living further out are more dependent on transport links but not all commuters are back office workers so some will still have to travel (and regrettably I'm hearing tales of staff being coerced back to work and being made to work longer shifts).
The impact of the loss of tourism on some towns is of course significant - the stories coming out of Cambridge are deeply worrying.
To take this further, Newham tell me the cost of responding to Covid has been £61 million. The Government has provided £20.5 million. Newham aren't in a bad place financially but other Councils are not so fortunate.
There's a cultural and psychological aspect to this - to what extent are we willing or able to embrace change? There's a huge and understandable desire for the familiar, the comfortable, the reassuring and in a way going back to what we were is our triumph over the virus but history tells us adversity creates opportunity and sometimes genuine progress comes out of disaster.
Trying to understand the future should be what Government is about rather than wasting time and money trying to preserve a past which is no longer sustainable.
And of course the market will self correct. If rents plunge in London as reported that will attract people.
But the vast commute we saw until the onset of covid. I think that is over for good. For ever.
Weekend shadow effect. Last 3-5 days subject to revisions. Last 5 days included for completeness. All wrongs reserved. This information is not to be used as information in any way. May contain nuts. May contain nutters. May contain trained, Marxist nutters.
Headline - 6 - lowest Monday or not Seven days - 6 Yesterday - 1
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
Also Peckham, New Cross and Greenwich in the SE (my neck of the woods). Close enough to enjoy the centre, plenty of green space and parks with nice views, friendly neighbours, good housing, lots going on locally, nice vibes. It is expensive compared to what you can buy elsewhere (I saw a stunning eight bedroom house with a lake in a lovely part of Cornwall that I know and love for sale for less than our house in London is (was?!) worth). But if you can afford to live here it is brilliant.
And of course the market will self correct. If rents plunge in London as reported that will attract people.
But the vast commute we saw until the onset of covid. I think that is over for good. For ever.
"Rents in London" covers a multitude of sins. In the West End you'd be looking at north of £100 per square foot in normal times - the City is about £70 psf and Docklands £50 psf and nearer £30 psf further out.
A lot also depends on the size, style and the rest of it.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
Also Peckham, New Cross and Greenwich in the SE (my neck of the woods). Close enough to enjoy the centre, plenty of green space and parks with nice views, friendly neighbours, good housing, lots going on locally, nice vibes. It is expensive compared to what you can buy elsewhere (I saw a stunning eight bedroom house with a lake in a lovely part of Cornwall that I know and love for sale for less than our house in London is (was?!) worth). But if you can afford to live here it is brilliant.
So offer your luxury pad in Peckham as a swap to the family with the Cornish house with a lake and see how you get on?
If you look at the top tax paying towns in Britain they are all in the commuter belt outside London.
They pay the most tax (Raab's Esher and Walton is top by a street) directly and many people here will also commute into London and spend there too.
Until now.
Lockdown may de facto be defunding Corbynite London and making rich areas outside it even richer.
This is your regular reminder that "Corbynite" London makes the biggest net fiscal contribution per capita of all the regions of the UK. Only the SE and East of England also make a positive contribution, while all other UK regions are net beneficiaries. Northern Ireland, Wales and the North East of England are the biggest beneficiaries of London largesse. You're welcome.
Weekend shadow effect. Last 3-5 days subject to revisions. Last 5 days included for completeness. All wrongs reserved. This information is not to be used as information in any way. May contain nuts. May contain nutters. May contain trained, Marxist nutters.
Headline - 6 - lowest Monday or not Seven days - 6 Yesterday - 1
ZERO deaths and 7 infections in Scotland
So that's 4 nations/regions with zero, 1 with one, 2 with two and 1 with four.
I wonder how Wales and NI are coping. Not seen their data for a while.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
Also Peckham, New Cross and Greenwich in the SE (my neck of the woods). Close enough to enjoy the centre, plenty of green space and parks with nice views, friendly neighbours, good housing, lots going on locally, nice vibes. It is expensive compared to what you can buy elsewhere (I saw a stunning eight bedroom house with a lake in a lovely part of Cornwall that I know and love for sale for less than our house in London is (was?!) worth). But if you can afford to live here it is brilliant.
So offer your luxury pad in Peckham as a swap to the family with the Cornish house with a lake and see how you get on?
I imagine they like living there just like I like living here. It may surprise you, but people like different things.
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Down here in warm sunny darkest Cornwall, everything is buzzing, and you can’t move for people and traffic.
So I am told by friends and rellies down there. They are positively gloating. Tho the vulnerable oldsters are less happy about the incomers
I had a pleasant encounter with a Cornish farmer this morning, who was simultaneously shouting at me and my dog to “geroff my land” and “don’t you come anywhere near me”. I told him he wasn’t being very friendly and he seemed somewhat surprised that friendliness would ever have been my expectation.
As far as I have seen, Cornwall natives have *never* been happy or polite about emmets.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
Also Peckham, New Cross and Greenwich in the SE (my neck of the woods). Close enough to enjoy the centre, plenty of green space and parks with nice views, friendly neighbours, good housing, lots going on locally, nice vibes. It is expensive compared to what you can buy elsewhere (I saw a stunning eight bedroom house with a lake in a lovely part of Cornwall that I know and love for sale for less than our house in London is (was?!) worth). But if you can afford to live here it is brilliant.
So offer your luxury pad in Peckham as a swap to the family with the Cornish house with a lake and see how you get on?
I imagine they like living there just like I like living here. It may surprise you, but people like different things.
You’d be able to move there without acquiring a sense of humour, whereas I doubt that the reverse is true
Well I think in this case I prefer it to the Chinese use of army 'volunteers'.
Medical experiments on the cabinet... ?
(edit) I see that it's supposedly a viral vector vaccine based on human adenovirus, so it might run in to the same problems as the similar Chinese vaccine - they're a large number of people with immunity to the viral vector (which is why Oxford used a chimp virus for theirs).
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
go on you now you want to explain it
Me too please ...
Allow me...
The RMS voltage is the equivalent steady DC voltage that would give the same power output from a resistive circuit (such as a simple heating element) as is obtainable from the AC voltage.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
Also Peckham, New Cross and Greenwich in the SE (my neck of the woods). Close enough to enjoy the centre, plenty of green space and parks with nice views, friendly neighbours, good housing, lots going on locally, nice vibes. It is expensive compared to what you can buy elsewhere (I saw a stunning eight bedroom house with a lake in a lovely part of Cornwall that I know and love for sale for less than our house in London is (was?!) worth). But if you can afford to live here it is brilliant.
So offer your luxury pad in Peckham as a swap to the family with the Cornish house with a lake and see how you get on?
I imagine they like living there just like I like living here. It may surprise you, but people like different things.
You’d be able to move there without acquiring a sense of humour, whereas I doubt that the reverse is true
Well they're the ones moving! Maybe they're bored of Rotary Club lunches and dogging or whatever it is that country-dwellers do to fill their days and have decided to try their luck in the People's Republic of Lewisham. We welcome all sorts here.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
go on you now you want to explain it
Me too please ...
RMS or root mean square is a way of finding a useful average value for a quantity that varies in a sinusoidal way. You square the values (which makes the sign irrelevant), take the mean of the squares (over a whole number of cycles) and then take the square root of the mean of the squares to get back to something in the right units. It is particularly appropriate for AC voltages as it gives a value with the same heating effect on a resistor as a DC voltage of the same value; the average power produced by a heater will be the same if you put 240V DC across it as if you put 240V AC (rms). It is less useful for working out how much insulation you need as the peak voltage is (obviously) 41% higher than the rms value.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
Also Peckham, New Cross and Greenwich in the SE (my neck of the woods). Close enough to enjoy the centre, plenty of green space and parks with nice views, friendly neighbours, good housing, lots going on locally, nice vibes. It is expensive compared to what you can buy elsewhere (I saw a stunning eight bedroom house with a lake in a lovely part of Cornwall that I know and love for sale for less than our house in London is (was?!) worth). But if you can afford to live here it is brilliant.
So offer your luxury pad in Peckham as a swap to the family with the Cornish house with a lake and see how you get on?
I imagine they like living there just like I like living here. It may surprise you, but people like different things.
You’d be able to move there without acquiring a sense of humour, whereas I doubt that the reverse is true
Well they're the ones moving! Maybe they're bored of Rotary Club lunches and dogging or whatever it is that country-dwellers do to fill their days and have decided to try their luck in the People's Republic of Lewisham. We welcome all sorts here.
Rotary Club is a charitable organisation and is as active in urban areas as it is in rural ones. My one supports a local food bank in suburban South London.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Who wants to live in the London of Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick?
9,750,500 people
I quite like Sadiq Khan. I like London, too. Can't honestly think of a single place on Earth that I'd rather be living, certainly nowhere else in England.
I used to say things like that, when I’d spent all my adult life in London, as well. But move away (later in life, to be fair) and experience the quality of life available in the rest of the country - fresh air, scenery, friendliness, quiet, wildlife, slowness, civility, affordable housing and the rest, and you won’t ever want to go back. London was made to visit, not to live.
You're talking about London as if it's one homogeneous mass (and "not London" in the same way).
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
For sure, but then central London proper is deserted now, because nobody lives there, and what residential property there is has been sold off to foreign criminals. Most regular folk in London live in the Outer Boroughs and console themselves with the thought that they have the best of both worlds. Whereas the reality is that the bright lights are still forty minutes away by overcrowded tube and the countryside is a forty minute drive the other way.
Zone 2 is the sweet spot, especially in Sarf London.
Yes - Camden to Islington and East London in the north, Clapham to Forest Hill or similar in the south.
Also Peckham, New Cross and Greenwich in the SE (my neck of the woods). Close enough to enjoy the centre, plenty of green space and parks with nice views, friendly neighbours, good housing, lots going on locally, nice vibes. It is expensive compared to what you can buy elsewhere (I saw a stunning eight bedroom house with a lake in a lovely part of Cornwall that I know and love for sale for less than our house in London is (was?!) worth). But if you can afford to live here it is brilliant.
So offer your luxury pad in Peckham as a swap to the family with the Cornish house with a lake and see how you get on?
I imagine they like living there just like I like living here. It may surprise you, but people like different things.
You’d be able to move there without acquiring a sense of humour, whereas I doubt that the reverse is true
Well they're the ones moving! Maybe they're bored of Rotary Club lunches and dogging or whatever it is that country-dwellers do to fill their days and have decided to try their luck in the People's Republic of Lewisham. We welcome all sorts here.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
go on you now you want to explain it
Me too please ...
RMS or root mean square is a way of finding a useful average value for a quantity that varies in a sinusoidal way. You square the values (which makes the sign irrelevant), take the mean of the squares (over a whole number of cycles) and then take the square root of the mean of the squares to get back to something in the right units. It is particularly appropriate for AC voltages as it gives a value with the same heating effect on a resistor as a DC voltage of the same value; the average power produced by a heater will be the same if you put 240V DC across it as if you put 240V AC (rms). It is less useful for working out how much insulation you need as the peak voltage is (obviously) 41% higher than the rms value.
I have had surveyors using that in the context of mapping OS maps onto what is actually on the ground in a number of cases. They divide the results into different confidences indicating the probability that the gate or whatever is within whatever distance is appropriate, typically 1m or 1.3m to where it is indicated on the map.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
go on you now you want to explain it
Me too please ...
Allow me...
The RMS voltage is the equivalent steady DC voltage that would give the same power output from a resistive circuit (such as a simple heating element) as is obtainable from the AC voltage.
PS Note that the UK output is actually 240V AC RMS. The EU introduced a new 'harmonised' 230V standard because some countries use 220V and the UK uses 240V. The tolerance permitted is 10%, so both 220V and 240V fall inside this new standard. The output remained exactly the same in all affected countries.
See Guardian article re Martin Lewis's concerns about the Student Loans Repayment website.
What is really breathtaking is that the standard of education has fallen to such an extent that graduates are unable to understand how the system works.
And it's a very simple system - certainly when I went to school I think the average 11 or 12 year old would have been expected to understand it after having it explained to them for a few minutes.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
go on you now you want to explain it
Me too please ...
Allow me...
The RMS voltage is the equivalent steady DC voltage that would give the same power output from a resistive circuit (such as a simple heating element) as is obtainable from the AC voltage.
PS Note that the UK output is actually 240V AC RMS. The EU introduced a new 'harmonised' 230V standard because some countries use 220V and the UK uses 240V. The tolerance permitted is 10%, so both 220V and 240V fall inside this new standard. The output remained exactly the same in all affected countries.
I thought that was the case, hence the ‘about’, but thanks for confirming it for me.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
go on you now you want to explain it
Me too please ...
Allow me...
The RMS voltage is the equivalent steady DC voltage that would give the same power output from a resistive circuit (such as a simple heating element) as is obtainable from the AC voltage.
PS Note that the UK output is actually 240V AC RMS. The EU introduced a new 'harmonised' 230V standard because some countries use 220V and the UK uses 240V. The tolerance permitted is 10%, so both 220V and 240V fall inside this new standard. The output remained exactly the same in all affected countries.
See Guardian article re Martin Lewis's concerns about the Student Loans Repayment website.
What is really breathtaking is that the standard of education has fallen to such an extent that graduates are unable to understand how the system works.
And it's a very simple system - certainly when I went to school I think the average 11 or 12 year old would have been expected to understand it after having it explained to them for a few minutes.
Am I cynical for thinking that any journalist worth their salt will therefore keep looking until they find graduates who are confused? Or at least will say they are?
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.
Taking the money and then laying off employees anyway is indeed the public relations disaster they are wanting to avoid.
The flip side to this is surely it is obvious John Lewis will have a smaller workforce by the end of next year without taking a £14m grant than they would if they took the grant? If customers and employees want jobs protected surely they would approve of taking the grant?
Or can people really not make that connection between jobs retained and cash in the bank?
When has explaining ever won against a simple tabloid headline?
Not that I disagree with you - I'm perfectly happy for any company to take the money and put more cash onto balance sheets - but customer-facing companies do have to consider the reputational implications in anticipation of significant belt-tightening in the future.
Comments
I’m also used to getting answers which are “true but not helpful” as an old teacher of mine used to write in my book when I did the same, which is not quite the same as “accurate but misleading” but comes close.
What’s even more impressive is that that didn’t satisfy the House of York, who decided to carry on the good work and wipe each other out.
But if I were being pedantic, I would point out, a la S B Chrimes, that all those dynasties are constructs by eighteenth century antiquarians anyway.
Weekend shadow effect. Last 3-5 days subject to revisions. Last 5 days included for completeness. All wrongs reserved. This information is not to be used as information in any way. May contain nuts. May contain nutters. May contain trained, Marxist nutters.
Headline - 6 - lowest Monday or not
Seven days - 6
Yesterday - 1
Combined with I guess hardly any foreign students attending the two universities , plus the loss of foreign tourists , its business model must be broke.
"An estimated one in three people in the US missed their housing payments in June"
https://www.vox.com/21327754/coronavirus-economy-second-stimulus-unemployment-extend-congress
America, like us, teeters on the edge of a cliff
That's a LOT of cities, going bust.
eg Cambridge
https://twitter.com/stevencambs/status/1282332732291534848?s=20
https://twitter.com/T_Edginton/status/1281194766491881474?s=20
As some of us predicted would happen. 3 bedrooms in Fulham - or the forever house of your dreams with a couple of acres of rewilded meadow set in idyllic countryside? If you can work from home in the self-contained granny flat and take the train once a week to London (maybe three hours each way - with the dining car and fascinating convivial company coming home) then London is looking at the mother of all re-assessments....
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-trump-will-do-whatever-he-can-get-away-with-87991365846
We cannot go back to forcing large numbers of people to make pointless journeys to do a job they can largely do remotely. Regardless of the short-term Rona emergency and the coming medium-term Brexit emergency we have the very long term climate emergency. Things needed to change, have changed and we need to stop trying to change them back. Our economy will adapt to the changed environment and can do so quickly with imagination and support. "Go back to the office so you can buy a Pret" from the PM is beyond stupid.
The island always suffered for the lack of decent jobs; if you can work remotely suddenly it becomes a very attractive place to live.
I lived in London in my 20s, left for a few years, and came back - not the same part as my priorities had changed. I was looking for somewhere greener, more settled etc, and found it. Equally, I'd leave again for the right opportunity.
London is (generally) relatively expensive of course. But people also tend to be better paid, and there's generally more going on in terms of events - I'm not doing down other regional cities by saying that and I know culture doesn't stop at the M25, but the choice is broader.
Nice chunks of the Hebrides and rural Wales should be OK
London will crater, at least in the middle.
It will be even worse in big American cities.
https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1284860893197721600
https://twitter.com/LoriInTheWoods/status/1285006737276166144
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/19/civil-war-vaccination-genetic-clues-smallpox/
Ancient-DNA sleuths analyzing Civil War-era artifacts with 21st-century sequencing techniques have recreated five genomes of viral vaccines mustered to fight smallpox in the 1860s, finding they were quite different from those used a century later to finally wipe out the disease.
Remarkably, scientists were able to recover viral molecules from the scabs, blisters, pus, and other biological traces lingering on knife-like lancets, tin boxes, and glass slides tucked into leather vaccination kits discovered at a Philadelphia museum of medical history. Doctors carried these custom-built cases to inoculate soldiers and citizens from smallpox while the North and South fought on nearby battlefields more than 150 years ago. Vaccines were made not in labs or factories then, but instead were grown in a human chain of people exposed to related but mild cousins of smallpox....
They pay the most tax (Raab's Esher and Walton is top by a street) directly and many people here will also commute into London and spend there too.
Until now.
Lockdown may de facto be defunding Corbynite London and making rich areas outside it even richer.
On a political point, I doubt any Conservative Mayor of London would have done anything much different in response to Covid than Sadiq. I also think conservatives are interested in air quality and housing so again it's hard to see the difference.
London will of course adapt as it always has - as someone said there is no one "London" but many different and varied areas. I'd argue East Ham is a world removed from Beckenham or Sutton (and I've lived in all three).
We aren't all commuters - many walk or cycle to work especially those in Inner London. I suspect those living further out are more dependent on transport links but not all commuters are back office workers so some will still have to travel (and regrettably I'm hearing tales of staff being coerced back to work and being made to work longer shifts).
The impact of the loss of tourism on some towns is of course significant - the stories coming out of Cambridge are deeply worrying.
To take this further, Newham tell me the cost of responding to Covid has been £61 million. The Government has provided £20.5 million. Newham aren't in a bad place financially but other Councils are not so fortunate.
There's a cultural and psychological aspect to this - to what extent are we willing or able to embrace change? There's a huge and understandable desire for the familiar, the comfortable, the reassuring and in a way going back to what we were is our triumph over the virus but history tells us adversity creates opportunity and sometimes genuine progress comes out of disaster.
Trying to understand the future should be what Government is about rather than wasting time and money trying to preserve a past which is no longer sustainable.
https://twitter.com/IwriteOK/status/1285069430666326016
But the vast commute we saw until the onset of covid. I think that is over for good. For ever.
https://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/1285190854362136579
A lot also depends on the size, style and the rest of it.
I wonder how Wales and NI are coping. Not seen their data for a while.
It seems to be overkill which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Oh wait...
How on earth can group 48 who include Blair, Mandelson, Heseltine and others stay silent about this outrage
Medical experiments on the cabinet... ?
(edit) I see that it's supposedly a viral vector vaccine based on human adenovirus, so it might run in to the same problems as the similar Chinese vaccine - they're a large number of people with immunity to the viral vector (which is why Oxford used a chimp virus for theirs).
The RMS voltage is the equivalent steady DC voltage that would give the same power output from a resistive circuit (such as a simple heating element) as is obtainable from the AC voltage.
You square the values (which makes the sign irrelevant), take the mean of the squares (over a whole number of cycles) and then take the square root of the mean of the squares to get back to something in the right units.
It is particularly appropriate for AC voltages as it gives a value with the same heating effect on a resistor as a DC voltage of the same value; the average power produced by a heater will be the same if you put 240V DC across it as if you put 240V AC (rms).
It is less useful for working out how much insulation you need as the peak voltage is (obviously) 41% higher than the rms value.
I figured explaining phases is the point where I need to start charging for this...
https://twitter.com/GuernseyPolice/status/1285191757341360129?s=20
What is really breathtaking is that the standard of education has fallen to such an extent that graduates are unable to understand how the system works.
And it's a very simple system - certainly when I went to school I think the average 11 or 12 year old would have been expected to understand it after having it explained to them for a few minutes.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jul/20/martin-lewis-accuses-student-loan-company-of-misleading-graduates
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1285220642426630145?s=20
Am I cynical for thinking that any journalist worth their salt will therefore keep looking until they find graduates who are confused? Or at least will say they are?
Not that I disagree with you - I'm perfectly happy for any company to take the money and put more cash onto balance sheets - but customer-facing companies do have to consider the reputational implications in anticipation of significant belt-tightening in the future.