Adding what to the debate? For starters, what sort of -ism is this? There's things like anarchism, about how you'd like thinks to be, and things like monism or deism about how you think things are. Which have you identified here?
It's a form of handwringing, a type of moral panic about falling standards. It's been going on for millennia.
Things aint what they used to be. Which for some reason I always hear in a sort of Michael Caine voice.
If you want proper declinism, then the current UK is a much stronger example.
Much Agriculture and all Fisheries is now on the brink of collapse. Manufacturing is finally going to the wall and over 100,000 small businesses are crippled. Logistics rates to and from the UK are up over 7x what they were 18 months ago. Over 20% of capital formerly controlled by the City of London has already left at a time when Fintech is rendering vast numbers of financial products, and the jobs they sustain, obsolete.
Permacrisis is on its way, But its OK because a government that still hands out Orders of the British Empire and peerages to scions of the KGB- but clearly had not read the critical economic deal they signed with Brussels with hours to spare- is showing the EU it means business by failing to do what 132 other countries do and recognize EU diplomats as diplomats, because that´ll show em.
Baby Trump is still set to be in power for another 4 years. I expect by the time his time is up that Westminster will be being besieged by the mob too.
We're still the 5th largest economy. How people can describe that as declinism baffles me.
Everyone on PB is using the word "declinism" wrongly, apart from me. Clear evidence that the site is in terrible and unstoppable decline.
Declinism isn't what it used to be.
You mean, people don't get their Latin grammar right any more?
We should have seen it coming all along: even the word 'case' means 'fall' etymologically.
The ancients were really good at declension and declinism and decline, not like our sad post-lapsarian mimicry...
Republicans in Arizona are going to get the forensic audit of Presidential ballots they demanded in the key Maricopa County of the state after election officials dropped a court case trying to stop them.
When the audit finds there was no significant election fraud, that may actually go a long way to healing divisions in the country and discrediting Trump's claims.
Let us hope so.
Did you do what I suggested and start prepping Trumpian spaces for some healing?
I don;t frequent any. 8 chan, whatever chan, Qanon complete closed book to me. If the latter is over, thank goodness. Lunacy.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
The state of this...
Because you know so much about the issue?
There would be no flooding if it wasn’t for EU regulations aye? You’re deranged. Just like your obsession with veganism being the cause of all ills.
Not regulations, a regulation. It's called the Water framework directive. It doesn't ban dredging, that wouldn't be a very 'EU' way of doing things, it just introduces assessment criteria that make it nearly impossible, the more so when the regulations are gold-plated by overzealous national agencies. In the UK, it's produced an almost total deadening effect. Not just in the UK, the Irish have been having issues too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/floods-eu-laws-not-to-blame-insists-european-commission-1.2485660
A quick Google also tells me some poor buggers tried to petition the Government to have the Roch and Irwell dredged back in 2016, getting a rather sad 68 signatures. I doubt this worked, so in the absence of other information, I am going to make the leap that these rivers still haven't been dredged, so the base of the rivers have just been left to rise and rise - so hardly surprising that this happens when it pisses it down.
You're so confident that your precious EU would never do anything wrong aren't you? It might be nice if you had the good manners to apologise for jumping down my throat when it's clear you knew less than nothing about the issue.
I was as critical as anyone of the confusing messaging and the ridiculous false sentimentality in the run-up to Christmas, which probably actually killed people. But although at 71 I suppose I'm in line to get a vaccination by Feb 15, really I'm not inclined to grumble if it's Feb 20 or 28.
It's right to urge all possible speed on the programme, but we should recognise that it's a big operation and hitches will occur - I'm not minded to give either the Government or Pfizer a hard time over that. People should focus on the serious issues, such as what gap between first and second jabs is actually safe.
It occurred to me today - perhaps rather belatedly - that vaccinations might well become compulsory. Like wearing a seatbelt in a car, or a crash helmet on a motorbike, or many other things that were once obviously optional, and no one ever thought they might become mandatory.
I don't know about vaccinations, but I bet we're stuck with masks forever. Whether it'll be all year or just for the six months between October and March each year for the rest of time I'm not really sure, but you can certainly imagine the justification for the latter already. Stop Flu, Protect the NHS, Save Lives...
Yes, agreed, masks will be with us for years. Every winter. Maybe forever.
Lots of people have noticed how colds and flus are much less prevalent this winter....
My point about vaccinations arose from reading a Times piece today (£££), on how "some forms" of lockdown might have to become permanent, because enough people will resist taking the vaccine for the disease to remain a real problem, and a terrible strain on the NHS.
That's the point at which vaccinations might become compulsory, I reckon (should this prediction come true). Why should the 80% of sensible people who have accepted a jab, have to tolerate a fecked economy and crocked health system, because 15% of people are wilfully selfish, deluded or stupid? ie antivaxxers?
Answer: they won't tolerate it, in the end. You will have your jab whether you want it or not.
If uptake is as high as is predicted then I doubt very much it will come to that. We'll get to something approximating to herd immunity, so the remaining sceptics can be left to live or die of it without causing serious difficulties.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Politico.com - How lawmakers trapped in the House stood their ground A handful of House members who were in the chamber recount how they fought off rioters during the deadly Jan. 6 attacks.
by Olivia Beavers - It was shortly after rioters had breached the Capitol on Jan. 6 and the scene inside the building was chaotic.
Authorities deployed tear gas in Statuary Hall, rioters were heading to the House chamber, members were being told to put on gas masks, and the Capitol Police were clearly outnumbered.
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), one of the dozens of lawmakers inside the House chamber, first leapt into action, helping an officer barricade the door on the House floor that leads to Statuary Hall. Texas freshman Reps. Troy Nehls, Tony Gonzales [R-Ohio], Pat Fallon [R-Texas] and Ronny Jackson [R-Texas], a Navy veteran, also soon joined Mullin in preparing to defend the chamber. . . .
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served three tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, had been watching the election certification debate from the House gallery along with other House members, staffers and a host of reporters.
Mullin said he called on Crow, a friend of his, to help evacuate the rest of the people out of the gallery. . . . .
Hope for the future if Rs and Ds can work together..
Is 'lawmakers' a generic term for politicians in the states or more specific?
Lawmakers = legislators, including members of Congress.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Just watched the Tom Hanks film "Greyhound" about the Atlantic convoys. Only 90 minutes long, but incredibly gripping. The CGI does make it feel a bit like a video-game, but it still gives a grim insight into the terror of running through that area where there was no air cover and the wolfpacks came out to play.
On Amazon TV, so maybe tricky for some to catch yet.
Just watched the Tom Hanks film "Greyhound" about the Atlantic convoys. Only 90 minutes long, but incredibly gripping. The CGI does make it feel a bit like a video-game, but it still gives a grim insight into the terror of running through that area where there was no air cover and the wolfpacks came out to play.
On Amazon TV, so maybe tricky for some to catch yet.
Taking down statues is a substitute for doing something useful.
It's a form of narcissism; the most public form of virtue-signalling there is.
It's the utter nihilism of it that gets me.
You might want to find out what "nihilism" means, because it doesn't really seem to fit with what you're trying to say.
Actually it does, as backed up by the OED, see the historical term.
I thought the issue was people over-asserting their moral principles, as in judging historic figures by their own modern standards. Nihilism seems to be the opposite criticism.
Can someone please give a coherent statement of what anti-wokism is about?
It will mean something different to different people, and in the way not everyone who is woke will consider themselves woke, some people will be anti-woke without thinking of it that way.
Cyclefree said this earlier 'on woke-ism' commenting on a Casino poist,which I think was a worthy comment:
the difference between being awake to and dealing with oppression and its consequences vs a somewhat narcissistic insistence on symbolic gesture and telling people what to think unaccompanied by any effective action to help people.
Kinabalu has argued that, even in the absence of action, better to be woke than non-woke at least, which is an interesting point, but I think the key is that anti-woke does not necessarily mean someone rejects an identification of the problems which those labelled (by themselves or opponents) as woke have raised, or even rejects all of the potential solutions.
So one can no more reject all those who an anti-woke than reject all those who are woke.
There will be people who are performatively opposed or in support of things, who get dramatically mad about some college woke drama or partake in some college woke drama, but there are also those who take a more nuanced view. I think Casino has said enough about concerns about genuine problems in these areas that his opposition to some 'woke' measures is not rooted in inherent opposition to its social aims.
Thanks.
And I'll pitch for a "thanks" too because I get a sense from your stuff that you DO care about racial justice. I reckon you care more than the average Conservative. Low bar, ok, but you clear it. Which is why I am amazed when you get yourself in as much of a lather as alt-right trolls like Paul Joseph Watson about "wokery". I don't understand this. Something seems amiss there. But OTOH, it would be boring if everybody had their ducks in a row about everything. It's better this way, where people intrigue and confuse other people. You have this kink (about woke) and that's the way it is. That's the wonder, is what I'm saying, the wonder of you.
Because this is something that needs to be shared widely.
Surreal as it was to hear Donald Trump mark the end of his presidency by blasting out YMCA (famously a song about trying to hook up with young men in the showers at a Christian hostel) another of his musical choices struck us as a bit unusual too.
One of the other songs Trump chose to play as he left the White House for the final time was Gloria by Laura Branigan. Originally an Italian song, Gloria was first brought to the attention of English-speaking audiences by a British hit-maker who gave it a translated set of English lyrics... Jonathan King.
Curious to see what QAnon makes of that.
Obviously it'd be like throwing laxatives into the monkey house.
America doesn't care about the yewtreeing of furriners. You still hear Gary Glitter (Rock n Roll Pt 2) played here from time to time.
The Joan Jett cover "I love Rock and Roll" version is played a lot.
There's also Doctorin' the Tardis which rather besmirches the reputation of the KLF.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Years ago, a hurricane (forget which one) devastated the Louisiana resort of Grand Isle, which is the Pelican State's only beach, a barrier island on the Gulf of Mexico, separated by miles and miles and miles of freshwater marsh and saltwater swamp (or is it visa versa?) from New Orleans & other spots of more-or-less dry land.
When they rebuilt, they put the new houses (permanent & vacation) up on stilts, leaving the ground floor as a car port.
That way, the next time there was a tidal surge, it swept across the island but did NOT take out the houses or flood them.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
Taking down statues is a substitute for doing something useful.
It's a form of narcissism; the most public form of virtue-signalling there is.
It's the utter nihilism of it that gets me.
You might want to find out what "nihilism" means, because it doesn't really seem to fit with what you're trying to say.
Actually it does, as backed up by the OED, see the historical term.
I thought the issue was people over-asserting their moral principles, as in judging historic figures by their own modern standards. Nihilism seems to be the opposite criticism.
Can someone please give a coherent statement of what anti-wokism is about?
It will mean something different to different people, and in the way not everyone who is woke will consider themselves woke, some people will be anti-woke without thinking of it that way.
Cyclefree said this earlier 'on woke-ism' commenting on a Casino poist,which I think was a worthy comment:
the difference between being awake to and dealing with oppression and its consequences vs a somewhat narcissistic insistence on symbolic gesture and telling people what to think unaccompanied by any effective action to help people.
Kinabalu has argued that, even in the absence of action, better to be woke than non-woke at least, which is an interesting point, but I think the key is that anti-woke does not necessarily mean someone rejects an identification of the problems which those labelled (by themselves or opponents) as woke have raised, or even rejects all of the potential solutions.
So one can no more reject all those who an anti-woke than reject all those who are woke.
There will be people who are performatively opposed or in support of things, who get dramatically mad about some college woke drama or partake in some college woke drama, but there are also those who take a more nuanced view. I think Casino has said enough about concerns about genuine problems in these areas that his opposition to some 'woke' measures is not rooted in inherent opposition to its social aims.
Thanks.
And I'll pitch for a "thanks" too because I get a sense from your stuff that you DO care about racial justice. I reckon you care more than the average Conservative. Low bar, ok, but you clear it. Which is why I am amazed when you get yourself in as much of a lather as alt-right trolls like Paul Joseph Watson about "wokery". I don't understand this. Something seems amiss there. But OTOH, it would be boring if everybody had their ducks in a row about everything. It's better this way, where people intrigue and confuse other people. You have this kink (about woke) and that's the way it is. That's the wonder, is what I'm saying, the wonder of you.
We've had HYUFD as Rod Stewart, now Casino Royale makes you think of Elvis. What's next?
Politico.com - How lawmakers trapped in the House stood their ground A handful of House members who were in the chamber recount how they fought off rioters during the deadly Jan. 6 attacks.
by Olivia Beavers - It was shortly after rioters had breached the Capitol on Jan. 6 and the scene inside the building was chaotic.
Authorities deployed tear gas in Statuary Hall, rioters were heading to the House chamber, members were being told to put on gas masks, and the Capitol Police were clearly outnumbered.
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), one of the dozens of lawmakers inside the House chamber, first leapt into action, helping an officer barricade the door on the House floor that leads to Statuary Hall. Texas freshman Reps. Troy Nehls, Tony Gonzales [R-Ohio], Pat Fallon [R-Texas] and Ronny Jackson [R-Texas], a Navy veteran, also soon joined Mullin in preparing to defend the chamber. . . .
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served three tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, had been watching the election certification debate from the House gallery along with other House members, staffers and a host of reporters.
Mullin said he called on Crow, a friend of his, to help evacuate the rest of the people out of the gallery. . . . .
Hope for the future if Rs and Ds can work together..
Is 'lawmakers' a generic term for politicians in the states or more specific?
Any member of either house of Congress or of a state legislature. It's because of the rigid separation of powers in the American system: members of the legislatures are only lawmakers. Anyone taking an executive rôle, whether elected or appointed, cannot also be a legislator. In the UK system, the members of the executive, the ministers, all have to be simultaneously legislators in one or other of the houses of Parliament.
It's classic gesture politics. It is much, much easier to announce more rules and maximum penalties than to enforce those you actually have, especially since individual situations are often messy and ambiguous, and the police usually overburdened and often sympathetic.
I thought we'd tried income-based fines for traffic offences.
We talked about it, but (unfortunately) I don't think it was ever implemented. Seems to work fine in Finland, and avoids the obvious unfairness that £50 is peanuts to some and disastrous for others.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
The state of this...
Because you know so much about the issue?
There would be no flooding if it wasn’t for EU regulations aye? You’re deranged. Just like your obsession with veganism being the cause of all ills.
Not regulations, a regulation. It's called the Water framework directive. It doesn't ban dredging, that wouldn't be a very 'EU' way of doing things, it just introduces assessment criteria that make it nearly impossible, the more so when the regulations are gold-plated by overzealous national agencies. In the UK, it's produced an almost total deadening effect. Not just in the UK, the Irish have been having issues too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/floods-eu-laws-not-to-blame-insists-european-commission-1.2485660
A quick Google also tells me some poor buggers tried to petition the Government to have the Roch and Irwell dredged back in 2016, getting a rather sad 68 signatures. I doubt this worked, so in the absence of other information, I am going to make the leap that these rivers still haven't been dredged, so the base of the rivers have just been left to rise and rise - so hardly surprising that this happens when it pisses it down.
You're so confident that your precious EU would never do anything wrong aren't you? It might be nice if you had the good manners to apologise for jumping down my throat when it's clear you knew less than nothing about the issue.
Like I said, you're deranged. I have never said that the EU never does anything wrong.
What I am doing is laughing at you for blaming flooding on the EU.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
I was as critical as anyone of the confusing messaging and the ridiculous false sentimentality in the run-up to Christmas, which probably actually killed people. But although at 71 I suppose I'm in line to get a vaccination by Feb 15, really I'm not inclined to grumble if it's Feb 20 or 28.
It's right to urge all possible speed on the programme, but we should recognise that it's a big operation and hitches will occur - I'm not minded to give either the Government or Pfizer a hard time over that. People should focus on the serious issues, such as what gap between first and second jabs is actually safe.
It occurred to me today - perhaps rather belatedly - that vaccinations might well become compulsory. Like wearing a seatbelt in a car, or a crash helmet on a motorbike, or many other things that were once obviously optional, and no one ever thought they might become mandatory.
I don't know about vaccinations, but I bet we're stuck with masks forever. Whether it'll be all year or just for the six months between October and March each year for the rest of time I'm not really sure, but you can certainly imagine the justification for the latter already. Stop Flu, Protect the NHS, Save Lives...
You think "Compulsory Mask Wearing" will be a vote winning platform? Well, it's a view.
Doesn't have the fans Trump has, could be Turtle soup in the forthcoming GOP civil war.
This is what you call legislative maneuver. Which is of course a MMcC specialty.
As for the situation within the Republican Party, methinks that Mitch's side is increasing relative to You-Know-Who.
Real question I think is, is Chuck Schumer even in the same league?
So far, he's been compared unfavorably to his predecessor, Harry Reid. Personally am hopeful he will rise to the challenge. AND prove that he can hold his own AND work together with President Biden and Minority Leader McConnell, as well as with Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Harris.
Because America - and the world - needs it. Badly - or rather goodly!
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
The state of this...
Because you know so much about the issue?
There would be no flooding if it wasn’t for EU regulations aye? You’re deranged. Just like your obsession with veganism being the cause of all ills.
Not regulations, a regulation. It's called the Water framework directive. It doesn't ban dredging, that wouldn't be a very 'EU' way of doing things, it just introduces assessment criteria that make it nearly impossible, the more so when the regulations are gold-plated by overzealous national agencies. In the UK, it's produced an almost total deadening effect. Not just in the UK, the Irish have been having issues too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/floods-eu-laws-not-to-blame-insists-european-commission-1.2485660
A quick Google also tells me some poor buggers tried to petition the Government to have the Roch and Irwell dredged back in 2016, getting a rather sad 68 signatures. I doubt this worked, so in the absence of other information, I am going to make the leap that these rivers still haven't been dredged, so the base of the rivers have just been left to rise and rise - so hardly surprising that this happens when it pisses it down.
You're so confident that your precious EU would never do anything wrong aren't you? It might be nice if you had the good manners to apologise for jumping down my throat when it's clear you knew less than nothing about the issue.
Like I said, you're deranged. I have never said that the EU never does anything wrong.
What I am doing is laughing at you for blaming flooding on the EU.
Oh, OK, it's just simple ignorance of the process of dredging. Well that's easily explained - dredging is the process of removing silt and other matter from river beds. Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year. That has an enormous impact on flooding, for obvious reasons.
I was as critical as anyone of the confusing messaging and the ridiculous false sentimentality in the run-up to Christmas, which probably actually killed people. But although at 71 I suppose I'm in line to get a vaccination by Feb 15, really I'm not inclined to grumble if it's Feb 20 or 28.
It's right to urge all possible speed on the programme, but we should recognise that it's a big operation and hitches will occur - I'm not minded to give either the Government or Pfizer a hard time over that. People should focus on the serious issues, such as what gap between first and second jabs is actually safe.
It occurred to me today - perhaps rather belatedly - that vaccinations might well become compulsory. Like wearing a seatbelt in a car, or a crash helmet on a motorbike, or many other things that were once obviously optional, and no one ever thought they might become mandatory.
I don't know about vaccinations, but I bet we're stuck with masks forever. Whether it'll be all year or just for the six months between October and March each year for the rest of time I'm not really sure, but you can certainly imagine the justification for the latter already. Stop Flu, Protect the NHS, Save Lives...
This time next year almost no-one will be wearing a mask. Prediction.
It's quite simple. I love our history, heritage and culture - the stories of how we became who we are, warts and all - and I don't want to see it desecrated.
The rest of it is a strong detestation for narcissism and self-absorption, the contradictory illogical bullshit one feels obliged to agree with (on pain of being called a bigot) and being preached at by the self-righteous and hypocritical, which I react to.
I was as critical as anyone of the confusing messaging and the ridiculous false sentimentality in the run-up to Christmas, which probably actually killed people. But although at 71 I suppose I'm in line to get a vaccination by Feb 15, really I'm not inclined to grumble if it's Feb 20 or 28.
It's right to urge all possible speed on the programme, but we should recognise that it's a big operation and hitches will occur - I'm not minded to give either the Government or Pfizer a hard time over that. People should focus on the serious issues, such as what gap between first and second jabs is actually safe.
It occurred to me today - perhaps rather belatedly - that vaccinations might well become compulsory. Like wearing a seatbelt in a car, or a crash helmet on a motorbike, or many other things that were once obviously optional, and no one ever thought they might become mandatory.
I don't know about vaccinations, but I bet we're stuck with masks forever. Whether it'll be all year or just for the six months between October and March each year for the rest of time I'm not really sure, but you can certainly imagine the justification for the latter already. Stop Flu, Protect the NHS, Save Lives...
You think "Compulsory Mask Wearing" will be a vote winning platform? Well, it's a view.
Quite. I think there will be a big push for mask wearing from public health organisations in the winter, but as awful as people dying annually of the flu is, and after this year consider mask wearing in those more difficult months, there simply would not be the public buy in to mandate the kind of measures we've had for Covid I suspect.
Politico.com - How lawmakers trapped in the House stood their ground A handful of House members who were in the chamber recount how they fought off rioters during the deadly Jan. 6 attacks.
by Olivia Beavers - It was shortly after rioters had breached the Capitol on Jan. 6 and the scene inside the building was chaotic.
Authorities deployed tear gas in Statuary Hall, rioters were heading to the House chamber, members were being told to put on gas masks, and the Capitol Police were clearly outnumbered.
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), one of the dozens of lawmakers inside the House chamber, first leapt into action, helping an officer barricade the door on the House floor that leads to Statuary Hall. Texas freshman Reps. Troy Nehls, Tony Gonzales [R-Ohio], Pat Fallon [R-Texas] and Ronny Jackson [R-Texas], a Navy veteran, also soon joined Mullin in preparing to defend the chamber. . . .
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served three tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, had been watching the election certification debate from the House gallery along with other House members, staffers and a host of reporters.
Mullin said he called on Crow, a friend of his, to help evacuate the rest of the people out of the gallery. . . . .
Hope for the future if Rs and Ds can work together..
Is 'lawmakers' a generic term for politicians in the states or more specific?
Any member of either house of Congress or of a state legislature. It's because of the rigid separation of powers in the American system: members of the legislatures are only lawmakers. Anyone taking an executive rôle, whether elected or appointed, cannot also be a legislator. In the UK system, the members of the executive, the ministers, all have to be simultaneously legislators in one or other of the houses of Parliament.
Think the term "lawmakers" is journalese, or at least popularized by reporters, editors and headline writers.
With respect to separation of powers, there ARE some exceptions built into the system. For example, presidential veto and VP as Senate president. Also role of House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem(pore) in presidential succession, and (as we've just seen) congressional certification of presidential & VP elections.
It's quite simple. I love our history, heritage and culture - the stories of how we became who we are, warts and all - and I don't want to see it desecrated.
The rest of it is a strong detestation for narcissism and self-absorption, the contradictory illogical bullshit one feels obliged to agree with (on pain of being called a bigot) and being preached at by the self-righteous and hypocritical, which I react to.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
The state of this...
Because you know so much about the issue?
There would be no flooding if it wasn’t for EU regulations aye? You’re deranged. Just like your obsession with veganism being the cause of all ills.
Not regulations, a regulation. It's called the Water framework directive. It doesn't ban dredging, that wouldn't be a very 'EU' way of doing things, it just introduces assessment criteria that make it nearly impossible, the more so when the regulations are gold-plated by overzealous national agencies. In the UK, it's produced an almost total deadening effect. Not just in the UK, the Irish have been having issues too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/floods-eu-laws-not-to-blame-insists-european-commission-1.2485660
A quick Google also tells me some poor buggers tried to petition the Government to have the Roch and Irwell dredged back in 2016, getting a rather sad 68 signatures. I doubt this worked, so in the absence of other information, I am going to make the leap that these rivers still haven't been dredged, so the base of the rivers have just been left to rise and rise - so hardly surprising that this happens when it pisses it down.
You're so confident that your precious EU would never do anything wrong aren't you? It might be nice if you had the good manners to apologise for jumping down my throat when it's clear you knew less than nothing about the issue.
Like I said, you're deranged. I have never said that the EU never does anything wrong.
What I am doing is laughing at you for blaming flooding on the EU.
Oh, OK, it's just simple ignorance of the process of dredging. Well that's easily explained - dredging is the process of removing silt and other matter from river beds. Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year. That has an enormous impact on flooding, for obvious reasons.
You're welcome.
"Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year."
So, over time, the world's rivers will simply disappear, right? Because that's the logical conclusion of what you've just written.
Back in the real world, there are complex interplays: rivers often erode their beds and their banks, naturally increasing their capacity. Locks and levees and concrete embankments further affect the flow of water.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
The utility of dredging for flood management is an incredibly nuanced topic. Pro-dredgers seem to attract a large quantity of fairly fanatical, impervious to facts, people it seems.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
I had already read that 'fact check' - it's sad how the term has become so debased.
Dredging does two main things - firstly it increases the capacity of rivers to hold water (this of course doesn't 'make it worse', it makes it better all round). The second is to increase flow through the dredged area. If that increases the risk of flooding downstream, the answer is fairly simple - dredge there too. You are trying to facilitate the flow of water into the sea. If downstream, flooding doesn't matter so much, don't dredge there.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
The state of this...
Because you know so much about the issue?
There would be no flooding if it wasn’t for EU regulations aye? You’re deranged. Just like your obsession with veganism being the cause of all ills.
Not regulations, a regulation. It's called the Water framework directive. It doesn't ban dredging, that wouldn't be a very 'EU' way of doing things, it just introduces assessment criteria that make it nearly impossible, the more so when the regulations are gold-plated by overzealous national agencies. In the UK, it's produced an almost total deadening effect. Not just in the UK, the Irish have been having issues too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/floods-eu-laws-not-to-blame-insists-european-commission-1.2485660
A quick Google also tells me some poor buggers tried to petition the Government to have the Roch and Irwell dredged back in 2016, getting a rather sad 68 signatures. I doubt this worked, so in the absence of other information, I am going to make the leap that these rivers still haven't been dredged, so the base of the rivers have just been left to rise and rise - so hardly surprising that this happens when it pisses it down.
You're so confident that your precious EU would never do anything wrong aren't you? It might be nice if you had the good manners to apologise for jumping down my throat when it's clear you knew less than nothing about the issue.
Like I said, you're deranged. I have never said that the EU never does anything wrong.
What I am doing is laughing at you for blaming flooding on the EU.
Oh, OK, it's just simple ignorance of the process of dredging. Well that's easily explained - dredging is the process of removing silt and other matter from river beds. Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year. That has an enormous impact on flooding, for obvious reasons.
You're welcome.
"Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year."
So, over time, the world's rivers will simply disappear, right? Because that's the logical conclusion of what you've just written.
Back in the real world, there are complex interplays: rivers often erode their beds and their banks, naturally increasing their capacity. Locks and levees and concrete embankments further affect the flow of water.
River dredging CAN be problematic. As can moat dredging - a fact at least one MP discovered about a decade ago?
O/T Just watched the JFK film with Costner from 1991. Excellent story and well made film. It does indicate how easy it is to fall into the conspiracy thories surrounding it. does also explain how easy to dupe a lot of people about the result of an election perhaps.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
The state of this...
Because you know so much about the issue?
There would be no flooding if it wasn’t for EU regulations aye? You’re deranged. Just like your obsession with veganism being the cause of all ills.
Not regulations, a regulation. It's called the Water framework directive. It doesn't ban dredging, that wouldn't be a very 'EU' way of doing things, it just introduces assessment criteria that make it nearly impossible, the more so when the regulations are gold-plated by overzealous national agencies. In the UK, it's produced an almost total deadening effect. Not just in the UK, the Irish have been having issues too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/floods-eu-laws-not-to-blame-insists-european-commission-1.2485660
A quick Google also tells me some poor buggers tried to petition the Government to have the Roch and Irwell dredged back in 2016, getting a rather sad 68 signatures. I doubt this worked, so in the absence of other information, I am going to make the leap that these rivers still haven't been dredged, so the base of the rivers have just been left to rise and rise - so hardly surprising that this happens when it pisses it down.
You're so confident that your precious EU would never do anything wrong aren't you? It might be nice if you had the good manners to apologise for jumping down my throat when it's clear you knew less than nothing about the issue.
Like I said, you're deranged. I have never said that the EU never does anything wrong.
What I am doing is laughing at you for blaming flooding on the EU.
Oh, OK, it's just simple ignorance of the process of dredging. Well that's easily explained - dredging is the process of removing silt and other matter from river beds. Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year. That has an enormous impact on flooding, for obvious reasons.
You're welcome.
"Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year."
So, over time, the world's rivers will simply disappear, right? Because that's the logical conclusion of what you've just written.
Back in the real world, there are complex interplays: rivers often erode their beds and their banks, naturally increasing their capacity. Locks and levees and concrete embankments further affect the flow of water.
The real problem (a while back) was that much of the drainage systems, in some areas, are maintained and artificial.
The EU rules were sometimes used as an *excuse* not to do anything. By people who wanted the budget to spend on other things.
In Oxfordshire, where I was brought up, after some bad floods a while back, suddenly all the small brooks, streams etc were massively cleared. Almost over night.
I was as critical as anyone of the confusing messaging and the ridiculous false sentimentality in the run-up to Christmas, which probably actually killed people. But although at 71 I suppose I'm in line to get a vaccination by Feb 15, really I'm not inclined to grumble if it's Feb 20 or 28.
It's right to urge all possible speed on the programme, but we should recognise that it's a big operation and hitches will occur - I'm not minded to give either the Government or Pfizer a hard time over that. People should focus on the serious issues, such as what gap between first and second jabs is actually safe.
It occurred to me today - perhaps rather belatedly - that vaccinations might well become compulsory. Like wearing a seatbelt in a car, or a crash helmet on a motorbike, or many other things that were once obviously optional, and no one ever thought they might become mandatory.
I don't know about vaccinations, but I bet we're stuck with masks forever. Whether it'll be all year or just for the six months between October and March each year for the rest of time I'm not really sure, but you can certainly imagine the justification for the latter already. Stop Flu, Protect the NHS, Save Lives...
You think "Compulsory Mask Wearing" will be a vote winning platform? Well, it's a view.
Most people hate the things, but they've also been forced to get used to them.
Flu deaths vary considerably from year to year but I think the yearly average is something like 15,000, most of which presumably take place during the usual annual Great NHS Winter Crisis™. Emotionally blackmailing the public into face rag use to ease the burden on nurses, not to mention saving grannies from a nasty death which could otherwise be pinned on Joe Public's selfishness for refusing to wear said rag, ought not to be terribly difficult - and it's potentially a big win for the Government. They might be able to improve hospital performance significantly, without having to spend any extra money at all, just by freeing up a load of beds that might otherwise be blocked by spluttering octogenarians.
I was as critical as anyone of the confusing messaging and the ridiculous false sentimentality in the run-up to Christmas, which probably actually killed people. But although at 71 I suppose I'm in line to get a vaccination by Feb 15, really I'm not inclined to grumble if it's Feb 20 or 28.
It's right to urge all possible speed on the programme, but we should recognise that it's a big operation and hitches will occur - I'm not minded to give either the Government or Pfizer a hard time over that. People should focus on the serious issues, such as what gap between first and second jabs is actually safe.
It occurred to me today - perhaps rather belatedly - that vaccinations might well become compulsory. Like wearing a seatbelt in a car, or a crash helmet on a motorbike, or many other things that were once obviously optional, and no one ever thought they might become mandatory.
I don't know about vaccinations, but I bet we're stuck with masks forever. Whether it'll be all year or just for the six months between October and March each year for the rest of time I'm not really sure, but you can certainly imagine the justification for the latter already. Stop Flu, Protect the NHS, Save Lives...
You think "Compulsory Mask Wearing" will be a vote winning platform? Well, it's a view.
Most people hate the things, but they've also been forced to get used to them.
Flu deaths vary considerably from year to year but I think the yearly average is something like 15,000, most of which presumably take place during the usual annual Great NHS Winter Crisis™. Emotionally blackmailing the public into face rag use to ease the burden on nurses, not to mention saving grannies from a nasty death which could otherwise be pinned on Joe Public's selfishness for refusing to wear said rag, ought not to be terribly difficult - and it's potentially a big win for the Government. They might be able to improve hospital performance significantly, without having to spend any extra money at all, just by freeing up a load of beds that might otherwise be blocked by spluttering octogenarians.
You seem to think people follow politicians.
That's not the way it works. Politicians follow people.
If it's a vote winner to remove mask restrictions*, then mask restrictions will go.
Just watched the Tom Hanks film "Greyhound" about the Atlantic convoys. Only 90 minutes long, but incredibly gripping. The CGI does make it feel a bit like a video-game, but it still gives a grim insight into the terror of running through that area where there was no air cover and the wolfpacks came out to play.
On Amazon TV, so maybe tricky for some to catch yet.
Apple TV+, not Amazon.
The Atlantic air gap was eventually closed by American-built Liberator aircraft but (with hindsight) it is a shame that the British government rejected calls to give Lancasters to Coastal Command.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
There might be individual instances where dredging works, but there aren't many. Problems occur with channel debris upstream of bridges but removing that isn't really dredging.
One thing you have to be careful of is that dredging embanked rivers too frequently eventually causes damage to the embankment, even with the normal stepped profile. It also increases erosion, adding yet more sediment. In a typical river the flood plain has a very much larger capacity than the normal channel anyway. This is even true of stepped embankments where the 'flood plain' is the normally dry area.
The best idea is to stop the silt getting into the system by managing the land better. In the case of the Irwell, that means the moors above Rossendale.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
The utility of dredging for flood management is an incredibly nuanced topic. Pro-dredgers seem to attract a large quantity of fairly fanatical, impervious to facts, people it seems.
Dredging cures all ills apparently.
Nuanced topic it may be, nuanced policy toward dredging, there certainly is not. We've almost totally stopped doing something that prevents river bed levels from rising year on year, and then when floods happen we wonder why.
It's like stopping brushing your teeth, and then loudly complaining about how food these days is causing more and more tooth decay. Yes, brushing may not cure all ills, but it's a lot better than no fucking brushing at all - you'd hope that would be understandable to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
Do you actually even know *why* you're against dredging, other than the fact that the EU, presumably with the acquiescence of the Scottish Government, are against it?
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
The state of this...
Because you know so much about the issue?
There would be no flooding if it wasn’t for EU regulations aye? You’re deranged. Just like your obsession with veganism being the cause of all ills.
Not regulations, a regulation. It's called the Water framework directive. It doesn't ban dredging, that wouldn't be a very 'EU' way of doing things, it just introduces assessment criteria that make it nearly impossible, the more so when the regulations are gold-plated by overzealous national agencies. In the UK, it's produced an almost total deadening effect. Not just in the UK, the Irish have been having issues too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/floods-eu-laws-not-to-blame-insists-european-commission-1.2485660
A quick Google also tells me some poor buggers tried to petition the Government to have the Roch and Irwell dredged back in 2016, getting a rather sad 68 signatures. I doubt this worked, so in the absence of other information, I am going to make the leap that these rivers still haven't been dredged, so the base of the rivers have just been left to rise and rise - so hardly surprising that this happens when it pisses it down.
You're so confident that your precious EU would never do anything wrong aren't you? It might be nice if you had the good manners to apologise for jumping down my throat when it's clear you knew less than nothing about the issue.
Like I said, you're deranged. I have never said that the EU never does anything wrong.
What I am doing is laughing at you for blaming flooding on the EU.
Oh, OK, it's just simple ignorance of the process of dredging. Well that's easily explained - dredging is the process of removing silt and other matter from river beds. Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year. That has an enormous impact on flooding, for obvious reasons.
You're welcome.
"Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year."
So, over time, the world's rivers will simply disappear, right? Because that's the logical conclusion of what you've just written.
Back in the real world, there are complex interplays: rivers often erode their beds and their banks, naturally increasing their capacity. Locks and levees and concrete embankments further affect the flow of water.
The real problem (a while back) was that much of the drainage systems, in some areas, are maintained and artificial.
The EU rules were sometimes used as an *excuse* not to do anything. By people who wanted the budget to spend on other things.
In Oxfordshire, where I was brought up, after some bad floods a while back, suddenly all the small brooks, streams etc were massively cleared. Almost over night.
In built-up areas and other altered landscapes, where dredging waterways has been been part of the alteration, as a rule it MUST be kept up on a VERY regular basis, with due adjustment for changing conditions.
Otherwise, you're gonna have a situation on your hands.
Here in WA State, we've recently had some experience with dam removals to restore old salmon runs. Which have resulted in significant changes downstream, mostly beneficial but also new realities.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
There might be individual instances where dredging works, but there aren't many. Problems occur with channel debris upstream of bridges but removing that isn't really dredging.
One thing you have to be careful of is that dredging embanked rivers too frequently eventually causes damage to the embankment, even with the normal stepped profile. It also increases erosion, adding yet more sediment. In a typical river the flood plain has a very much larger capacity than the normal channel anyway. This is even true of stepped embankments where the 'flood plain' is the normally dry area.
The best idea is to stop the silt getting into the system by managing the land better. In the case of the Irwell, that means the moors above Rossendale.
Yes the basic solution to flooding isn't magicing the water down the river faster in defiance of physics. It is to stop so much water draining into the rivers to begin with.
In better news, we've now covered 9.2% of the eligible population with at least one dose of the vaccine. Should hit 10% tomorrow. Barring supply issues we now have a large enough distribution network in place or coming into place to do 4m jabs every week IMO so everything is now down to supply, supply, supply. Whatever AZ needs the government should be facilitating to get doses delivered even if it means spending 10x as we would normally need to spend on it. The opportunity cost of counting coppers on the vaccine is absolutely massive.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
I had already read that 'fact check' - it's sad how the term has become so debased.
Dredging does two main things - firstly it increases the capacity of rivers to hold water (this of course doesn't 'make it worse', it makes it better all round). The second is to increase flow through the dredged area. If that increases the risk of flooding downstream, the answer is fairly simple - dredge there too. You are trying to facilitate the flow of water into the sea. If downstream, flooding doesn't matter so much, don't dredge there.
Out of interest, where do you think all this silt comes from? And what effect do you think faster flows will have on that process? Can you think of any unintended consequences of trying to engineer rivers into devices for moving water away from here as fast as possible? Are you aware of any obstacles to increased river flow that might interact badly with higher flow peaks? I'll give you a clue on the last one: BR*DGES.
Wales and Scotland (which has done even worse) are both apparently deploying the excuse that they've been prioritising the care homes. The problem being, of course, that there are so many more over 80s in the wider community than there are old people and carers put together in the homes that, in proportionate terms, their overall performance is still substantially inferior to that of the English NHS.
I don't believe that an excuse has yet been found to blame all of this on Westminster, but I'm sure it won't be too long in coming.
"Boris's latest b***s up: Passengers fume after waiting in queues 'with no social distancing' for more than an hour at Heathrow in fourth day of chaos after negative coronavirus test rule was enforced WHO health worker Alvaro Garbayo was in one queue and stunned by the chaos Officials issued more than 30 fines at London Heathrow Airport on the first day People can be fined a minimum of £500 for not complying with the rules Queues built up in immigration hall with some travellers reporting hour wait"
It's classic gesture politics. It is much, much easier to announce more rules and maximum penalties than to enforce those you actually have, especially since individual situations are often messy and ambiguous, and the police usually overburdened and often sympathetic.
I thought we'd tried income-based fines for traffic offences.
We talked about it, but (unfortunately) I don't think it was ever implemented. Seems to work fine in Finland, and avoids the obvious unfairness that £50 is peanuts to some and disastrous for others.
An in-law of a friend owned a business won a business woman of the year award and was what most of us would call loaded. Her fines for speeding were a drop in the ocean. What the real punishment for her was when she lost her license because of being caught speeding one too many times. This meant that she had to employ a driver, to do her job and most of the other things she had taken for granted. In the evening she had to take taxis everywhere.
Moral of the story: most fines are no punishment for the rich, penalties which mean they have to reorganise their life have much more of an impact
O/T Just watched the JFK film with Costner from 1991. Excellent story and well made film. It does indicate how easy it is to fall into the conspiracy thories surrounding it. does also explain how easy to dupe a lot of people about the result of an election perhaps.
Trump was right about being robbed in one way. The extension of remote voting was a great help to the Democrats, who ruthlessly exploited it while Trump advised his own supporters to steer clear (even though he later voted early himself).
(Ironically, if the Dem-leaning conspiracy theorists are to be believed, this was part of a GOP conspiracy to steal the election for Trump.)
Trump also shot himself in the foot with his performance in the first debate, boorishly shouting down Biden rather than letting him speak and reveal he had nothing to say.
So this was an election the President could easily have won, were it not for Donald Trump.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
There might be individual instances where dredging works, but there aren't many. Problems occur with channel debris upstream of bridges but removing that isn't really dredging.
One thing you have to be careful of is that dredging embanked rivers too frequently eventually causes damage to the embankment, even with the normal stepped profile. It also increases erosion, adding yet more sediment. In a typical river the flood plain has a very much larger capacity than the normal channel anyway. This is even true of stepped embankments where the 'flood plain' is the normally dry area.
The best idea is to stop the silt getting into the system by managing the land better. In the case of the Irwell, that means the moors above Rossendale.
Nobody is arguing for dredging 'too frequently', they're saying that it is a necessary part of river maintenance, to ensure that the river bed does not rise year on year, reducing the capacity of the river.
This is about maintenance - prevention not cure. A river that has more capacity, can take a greater degree of rainfall. That doesn't mean that there are not other beneficial activities, or that we should dredge the rivers all the time, or that we should build on flood plains. These arguments however, are still tangential to the main point.
When the centre-left is negative and cynical, they don't win elections. The only two Labour leaders to win elections since 1960 were both fairly positive and optimistic characters, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Voters don't like doom and gloom from the centre-left. (They sometimes tolerate it from the centre-right because it suits them better).
O/T Just watched the JFK film with Costner from 1991. Excellent story and well made film. It does indicate how easy it is to fall into the conspiracy thories surrounding it. does also explain how easy to dupe a lot of people about the result of an election perhaps.
Trump was right about being robbed in one way. The extension of remote voting was a great help to the Democrats, who ruthlessly exploited it while Trump advised his own supporters to steer clear (even though he later voted early himself).
Seems like those sentences contradict one another. It surely cannot count as him being right even 'in one way' when the only thing he had to do to not get shot in the foot was not fire the gun himself.
In better news, we've now covered 9.2% of the eligible population with at least one dose of the vaccine. Should hit 10% tomorrow. Barring supply issues we now have a large enough distribution network in place or coming into place to do 4m jabs every week IMO so everything is now down to supply, supply, supply. Whatever AZ needs the government should be facilitating to get doses delivered even if it means spending 10x as we would normally need to spend on it. The opportunity cost of counting coppers on the vaccine is absolutely massive.
The thing is, the length of the lockdown is no longer dependent on vaccination numbers. Read the press. Ministers are now spinning for the summer. SAGE are setting out their stall for post vaccination lockdown.
There's going to be an almightly clash between the party and the cabinet in February/March, and the party is going to lose.
And we are going to be in lockdown, for better or worse, until the summer. Possibly. Or longer. They do not know. They are promising nothing.
Taking down statues is a substitute for doing something useful.
It's a form of narcissism; the most public form of virtue-signalling there is.
It's the utter nihilism of it that gets me.
You might want to find out what "nihilism" means, because it doesn't really seem to fit with what you're trying to say.
Actually it does, as backed up by the OED, see the historical term.
I thought the issue was people over-asserting their moral principles, as in judging historic figures by their own modern standards. Nihilism seems to be the opposite criticism.
Can someone please give a coherent statement of what anti-wokism is about?
It will mean something different to different people, and in the way not everyone who is woke will consider themselves woke, some people will be anti-woke without thinking of it that way.
Cyclefree said this earlier 'on woke-ism' commenting on a Casino poist,which I think was a worthy comment:
the difference between being awake to and dealing with oppression and its consequences vs a somewhat narcissistic insistence on symbolic gesture and telling people what to think unaccompanied by any effective action to help people.
Kinabalu has argued that, even in the absence of action, better to be woke than non-woke at least, which is an interesting point, but I think the key is that anti-woke does not necessarily mean someone rejects an identification of the problems which those labelled (by themselves or opponents) as woke have raised, or even rejects all of the potential solutions.
So one can no more reject all those who an anti-woke than reject all those who are woke.
There will be people who are performatively opposed or in support of things, who get dramatically mad about some college woke drama or partake in some college woke drama, but there are also those who take a more nuanced view. I think Casino has said enough about concerns about genuine problems in these areas that his opposition to some 'woke' measures is not rooted in inherent opposition to its social aims.
Thanks.
And I'll pitch for a "thanks" too because I get a sense from your stuff that you DO care about racial justice. I reckon you care more than the average Conservative. Low bar, ok, but you clear it. Which is why I am amazed when you get yourself in as much of a lather as alt-right trolls like Paul Joseph Watson about "wokery". I don't understand this. Something seems amiss there. But OTOH, it would be boring if everybody had their ducks in a row about everything. It's better this way, where people intrigue and confuse other people. You have this kink (about woke) and that's the way it is. That's the wonder, is what I'm saying, the wonder of you.
We've had HYUFD as Rod Stewart, now Casino Royale makes you think of Elvis. What's next?
It's quite simple. I love our history, heritage and culture - the stories of how we became who we are, warts and all - and I don't want to see it desecrated.
The rest of it is a strong detestation for narcissism and self-absorption, the contradictory illogical bullshit one feels obliged to agree with (on pain of being called a bigot) and being preached at by the self-righteous and hypocritical, which I react to.
But @Casino_Royale you appear to get enraged about the removal of *any* statue.
I wouldn't be happy if statues of actual British heroes, people who are actually part of our national myth, were taken down. The likes of Churchill, Boudica, Darwin, Kings and Queens, etc.
But why do you care if a statue of some random slaver is taken down? Nobody cares about them. They have no historical or emotional value. Why?
Or is it simply to fight back at your enemy, the woke?
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
The state of this...
Because you know so much about the issue?
There would be no flooding if it wasn’t for EU regulations aye? You’re deranged. Just like your obsession with veganism being the cause of all ills.
Not regulations, a regulation. It's called the Water framework directive. It doesn't ban dredging, that wouldn't be a very 'EU' way of doing things, it just introduces assessment criteria that make it nearly impossible, the more so when the regulations are gold-plated by overzealous national agencies. In the UK, it's produced an almost total deadening effect. Not just in the UK, the Irish have been having issues too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/floods-eu-laws-not-to-blame-insists-european-commission-1.2485660
A quick Google also tells me some poor buggers tried to petition the Government to have the Roch and Irwell dredged back in 2016, getting a rather sad 68 signatures. I doubt this worked, so in the absence of other information, I am going to make the leap that these rivers still haven't been dredged, so the base of the rivers have just been left to rise and rise - so hardly surprising that this happens when it pisses it down.
You're so confident that your precious EU would never do anything wrong aren't you? It might be nice if you had the good manners to apologise for jumping down my throat when it's clear you knew less than nothing about the issue.
Like I said, you're deranged. I have never said that the EU never does anything wrong.
What I am doing is laughing at you for blaming flooding on the EU.
Oh, OK, it's just simple ignorance of the process of dredging. Well that's easily explained - dredging is the process of removing silt and other matter from river beds. Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year. That has an enormous impact on flooding, for obvious reasons.
You're welcome.
"Without being dredged the river bed rises year on year, reducing the capacity of the river year on year."
So, over time, the world's rivers will simply disappear, right? Because that's the logical conclusion of what you've just written.
Back in the real world, there are complex interplays: rivers often erode their beds and their banks, naturally increasing their capacity. Locks and levees and concrete embankments further affect the flow of water.
The real problem (a while back) was that much of the drainage systems, in some areas, are maintained and artificial.
The EU rules were sometimes used as an *excuse* not to do anything. By people who wanted the budget to spend on other things.
In Oxfordshire, where I was brought up, after some bad floods a while back, suddenly all the small brooks, streams etc were massively cleared. Almost over night.
In built-up areas and other altered landscapes, where dredging waterways has been been part of the alteration, as a rule it MUST be kept up on a VERY regular basis, with due adjustment for changing conditions.
Otherwise, you're gonna have a situation on your hands.
Here in WA State, we've recently had some experience with dam removals to restore old salmon runs. Which have resulted in significant changes downstream, mostly beneficial but also new realities.
Aren't there even bigger problems in WA?
Building on a flood plain is one thing, but building on a flood plain below a glacier with a volcano under it? Good thinking!
It's quite simple. I love our history, heritage and culture - the stories of how we became who we are, warts and all - and I don't want to see it desecrated.
The rest of it is a strong detestation for narcissism and self-absorption, the contradictory illogical bullshit one feels obliged to agree with (on pain of being called a bigot) and being preached at by the self-righteous and hypocritical, which I react to.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
There might be individual instances where dredging works, but there aren't many. Problems occur with channel debris upstream of bridges but removing that isn't really dredging.
One thing you have to be careful of is that dredging embanked rivers too frequently eventually causes damage to the embankment, even with the normal stepped profile. It also increases erosion, adding yet more sediment. In a typical river the flood plain has a very much larger capacity than the normal channel anyway. This is even true of stepped embankments where the 'flood plain' is the normally dry area.
The best idea is to stop the silt getting into the system by managing the land better. In the case of the Irwell, that means the moors above Rossendale.
Nobody is arguing for dredging 'too frequently', they're saying that it is a necessary part of river maintenance, to ensure that the river bed does not rise year on year, reducing the capacity of the river.
This is about maintenance - prevention not cure. A river that has more capacity, can take a greater degree of rainfall. That doesn't mean that there are not other beneficial activities, or that we should dredge the rivers all the time, or that we should build on flood plains. These arguments however, are still tangential to the main point.
Your entire argument is tangential to the main point.
We were having a lighthearted discussion about flooding and you decided to pop up and blame it all on the EU. it's laughable.
"Boris's latest b***s up: Passengers fume after waiting in queues 'with no social distancing' for more than an hour at Heathrow in fourth day of chaos after negative coronavirus test rule was enforced WHO health worker Alvaro Garbayo was in one queue and stunned by the chaos Officials issued more than 30 fines at London Heathrow Airport on the first day People can be fined a minimum of £500 for not complying with the rules Queues built up in immigration hall with some travellers reporting hour wait"
Why in the name of God they don't simply bar anybody except UK nationals and residents (and certain other limited exceptions like foreign diplomats) from coming in at all, and transport practically all new arrivals direct to airport hotels and lock them up for two weeks, defies all reason - but the handling of travel has been a total shambles from the outset.
If, with the aid of a more efficient than expected vaccination programme, they do finally manage to put a lid on this bloody virus then I do hope that foreign holidays get properly cancelled this year. The last bloody thing we need is yet more opportunities to import more and more exotic mutant forms of Plague.
Ending up with jab resistant Covid and having to "tweak" the sodding vaccine and start this palaver all over again in the Autumn is not a price worth paying for letting Mr & Mrs Lardarse and their porky tots jet off for their ten nights of sunburn and sangria in Malaga this July.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
I had already read that 'fact check' - it's sad how the term has become so debased.
Dredging does two main things - firstly it increases the capacity of rivers to hold water (this of course doesn't 'make it worse', it makes it better all round). The second is to increase flow through the dredged area. If that increases the risk of flooding downstream, the answer is fairly simple - dredge there too. You are trying to facilitate the flow of water into the sea. If downstream, flooding doesn't matter so much, don't dredge there.
Out of interest, where do you think all this silt comes from? And what effect do you think faster flows will have on that process? Can you think of any unintended consequences of trying to engineer rivers into devices for moving water away from here as fast as possible? Are you aware of any obstacles to increased river flow that might interact badly with higher flow peaks? I'll give you a clue on the last one: BR*DGES.
You speak as if dredging is some risky new Brexiteer wheeze that I've just invented. Dredging is THE NORM. It has been done for decades as part of responsible river management. It is leaving the rivers to clutter up that is the new experiment, and the lack of dredging cannot be absolved from responsibility for the current flooding, no matter how many irrelevant arguments attacking its use get brought up.
Again, the knee-jerk response to criticism of the EU from you guys is hilarious. Is anti-dredging the new PC? Is dredging racist?
"Boris's latest b***s up: Passengers fume after waiting in queues 'with no social distancing' for more than an hour at Heathrow in fourth day of chaos after negative coronavirus test rule was enforced WHO health worker Alvaro Garbayo was in one queue and stunned by the chaos Officials issued more than 30 fines at London Heathrow Airport on the first day People can be fined a minimum of £500 for not complying with the rules Queues built up in immigration hall with some travellers reporting hour wait"
In better news, we've now covered 9.2% of the eligible population with at least one dose of the vaccine. Should hit 10% tomorrow. Barring supply issues we now have a large enough distribution network in place or coming into place to do 4m jabs every week IMO so everything is now down to supply, supply, supply. Whatever AZ needs the government should be facilitating to get doses delivered even if it means spending 10x as we would normally need to spend on it. The opportunity cost of counting coppers on the vaccine is absolutely massive.
The thing is, the length of the lockdown is no longer dependent on vaccination numbers. Read the press. Ministers are now spinning for the summer. SAGE are setting out their stall for post vaccination lockdown.
There's going to be an almightly clash between the party and the cabinet in February/March, and the party is going to lose.
And we are going to be in lockdown, for better or worse, until the summer. Possibly. Or longer. They do not know. They are promising nothing.
It was never going to be based on vaccination numbers. It was always going to be based on hospitalisation numbers, indirectly that is based on the number of people with partial or full immunity in key age demographics as they are less likely to end up in hospital. By the time we get to May/June the case for any kind of major lockdown is going to be almost non-existent unless there is a vaccine evading mutation in circulation. By the beginning of June we should be close to herd immunity through vaccination and prior infections, the number of symptomatic cases will be very tiny and the number of people being hospitalised everyday from this will be vanishingly small. If the scientists are asking for continued lockdown measures at that point the government will rightly tell them to do one, the people will simply ignore the rules.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
I had already read that 'fact check' - it's sad how the term has become so debased.
Dredging does two main things - firstly it increases the capacity of rivers to hold water (this of course doesn't 'make it worse', it makes it better all round). The second is to increase flow through the dredged area. If that increases the risk of flooding downstream, the answer is fairly simple - dredge there too. You are trying to facilitate the flow of water into the sea. If downstream, flooding doesn't matter so much, don't dredge there.
What parts of it are contentious? Are there expert opinions suggesting otherwise.
As for the comments about dredging further downstream, you can't do that forever. The water has to go somewhere, and at some point it reaches the sea where no amount of dredging will help.
In better news, we've now covered 9.2% of the eligible population with at least one dose of the vaccine. Should hit 10% tomorrow. Barring supply issues we now have a large enough distribution network in place or coming into place to do 4m jabs every week IMO so everything is now down to supply, supply, supply. Whatever AZ needs the government should be facilitating to get doses delivered even if it means spending 10x as we would normally need to spend on it. The opportunity cost of counting coppers on the vaccine is absolutely massive.
Is that a percentage of the adult or total population? Children probably don't need to be vaccinated.
O/T Just watched the JFK film with Costner from 1991. Excellent story and well made film. It does indicate how easy it is to fall into the conspiracy thories surrounding it. does also explain how easy to dupe a lot of people about the result of an election perhaps.
Trump was right about being robbed in one way. The extension of remote voting was a great help to the Democrats, who ruthlessly exploited it while Trump advised his own supporters to steer clear (even though he later voted early himself).
(Ironically, if the Dem-leaning conspiracy theorists are to be believed, this was part of a GOP conspiracy to steal the election for Trump.)
Trump also shot himself in the foot with his performance in the first debate, boorishly shouting down Biden rather than letting him speak and reveal he had nothing to say.
So this was an election the President could easily have won, were it not for Donald Trump.
You have to work quite hard to lose an election as an incumbent in the US.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
I had already read that 'fact check' - it's sad how the term has become so debased.
Dredging does two main things - firstly it increases the capacity of rivers to hold water (this of course doesn't 'make it worse', it makes it better all round). The second is to increase flow through the dredged area. If that increases the risk of flooding downstream, the answer is fairly simple - dredge there too. You are trying to facilitate the flow of water into the sea. If downstream, flooding doesn't matter so much, don't dredge there.
What parts of it are contentious? Are there expert opinions suggesting otherwise.
As for the comments about dredging further downstream, you can't do that forever. The water has to go somewhere, and at some point it reaches the sea where no amount of dredging will help.
In better news, we've now covered 9.2% of the eligible population with at least one dose of the vaccine. Should hit 10% tomorrow. Barring supply issues we now have a large enough distribution network in place or coming into place to do 4m jabs every week IMO so everything is now down to supply, supply, supply. Whatever AZ needs the government should be facilitating to get doses delivered even if it means spending 10x as we would normally need to spend on it. The opportunity cost of counting coppers on the vaccine is absolutely massive.
Is that a percentage of the adult or total population? Children probably don't need to be vaccinated.
Eligible people so adults, it's about 54m in the UK.
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
I had already read that 'fact check' - it's sad how the term has become so debased.
Dredging does two main things - firstly it increases the capacity of rivers to hold water (this of course doesn't 'make it worse', it makes it better all round). The second is to increase flow through the dredged area. If that increases the risk of flooding downstream, the answer is fairly simple - dredge there too. You are trying to facilitate the flow of water into the sea. If downstream, flooding doesn't matter so much, don't dredge there.
What parts of it are contentious? Are there expert opinions suggesting otherwise.
As for the comments about dredging further downstream, you can't do that forever. The water has to go somewhere, and at some point it reaches the sea where no amount of dredging will help.
People don't live in the sea Rob.
Do you really think I don't know that. But dreding will not help you if you are in the tidal area of the river, since there is an almost infinite amount of water that will fill it. At that point it backs up, and you are back to square one. Do you really think the various people who study this sort of thing for a living are really that dumb?
Biden's the kind of man who just doesn't want to retire. That's not the same as he won't. My gut is he will still be a one termer even if he talks like he is in it for two seasons.
I am not yet convinced the Democrats have a straightforward POTUS election in 4 years either. They should because the current goings on suggest that the GOP will not motivate their vote through splits in the camp. In 2020, however it was all about getting Trump out. In 2024, it isn't.
If the GOP can stay solid and get a Trump tinged policy agenda & message without the narcissism and corruption it's going to be more interesting than it looks right now.
It's quite simple. I love our history, heritage and culture - the stories of how we became who we are, warts and all - and I don't want to see it desecrated.
The rest of it is a strong detestation for narcissism and self-absorption, the contradictory illogical bullshit one feels obliged to agree with (on pain of being called a bigot) and being preached at by the self-righteous and hypocritical, which I react to.
But @Casino_Royale you appear to get enraged about the removal of *any* statue.
I wouldn't be happy if statues of actual British heroes, people who are actually part of our national myth, were taken down. The likes of Churchill, Boudica, Darwin, Kings and Queens, etc.
But why do you care if a statue of some random slaver is taken down? Nobody cares about them. They have no historical or emotional value. Why?
Or is it simply to fight back at your enemy, the woke?
A bad question, because there's very few statues of "random slavers," or if there are lots, name some. Even Colston was only there in the first place because he was the one slaver in a hundred who devoted a lot of his earnings to serious and seriously beneficial charitable works. And he was rather a good statue, and these statues won't be replaced with other things of equal interest, variety and merit. Colston's much more evil boss incidentally was James II of whom there is a Grinling Gibbons statue in Trafalgar Square. It is undeniable that the UK slave trade was an enterprise of monstrous evil, but wankers attacking statues achieves what, in your view?
Nothing wrong with houses being built there - it's the refusal to dredge the rivers based on EU regulations and enforced by the environment agency that is the issue. Now we've left the EU, a this is something that can be re-assessed.
Dredging rivers won't make up for the propensity to develop willy nilly on flood plains and increased flooding from increased climate energy.
Dredging rivers is mostly waste of time.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
Building houses on a flood plain isn't a great idea, that much is true of course. But that doesn't mean that rivers shouldn't be dredged regularly to prevent the river bed rising over time. Even with tidal rivers, it still increases the capacity of the river to accommodate rainfall - the people objecting to a lack of dredging still had a valid argument.
I had already read that 'fact check' - it's sad how the term has become so debased.
Dredging does two main things - firstly it increases the capacity of rivers to hold water (this of course doesn't 'make it worse', it makes it better all round). The second is to increase flow through the dredged area. If that increases the risk of flooding downstream, the answer is fairly simple - dredge there too. You are trying to facilitate the flow of water into the sea. If downstream, flooding doesn't matter so much, don't dredge there.
Out of interest, where do you think all this silt comes from? And what effect do you think faster flows will have on that process? Can you think of any unintended consequences of trying to engineer rivers into devices for moving water away from here as fast as possible? Are you aware of any obstacles to increased river flow that might interact badly with higher flow peaks? I'll give you a clue on the last one: BR*DGES.
You speak as if dredging is some risky new Brexiteer wheeze that I've just invented. Dredging is THE NORM. It has been done for decades as part of responsible river management. It is leaving the rivers to clutter up that is the new experiment, and the lack of dredging cannot be absolved from responsibility for the current flooding, no matter how many irrelevant arguments attacking its use get brought up.
Again, the knee-jerk response to criticism of the EU from you guys is hilarious. Is anti-dredging the new PC? Is dredging racist?
Your actual complaint is against "overzealous national agencies" which for some reason you want to blame the EU for. Did it poison their minds against your common sense solutions?
In better news, we've now covered 9.2% of the eligible population with at least one dose of the vaccine. Should hit 10% tomorrow. Barring supply issues we now have a large enough distribution network in place or coming into place to do 4m jabs every week IMO so everything is now down to supply, supply, supply. Whatever AZ needs the government should be facilitating to get doses delivered even if it means spending 10x as we would normally need to spend on it. The opportunity cost of counting coppers on the vaccine is absolutely massive.
In better news, we've now covered 9.2% of the eligible population with at least one dose of the vaccine. Should hit 10% tomorrow. Barring supply issues we now have a large enough distribution network in place or coming into place to do 4m jabs every week IMO so everything is now down to supply, supply, supply. Whatever AZ needs the government should be facilitating to get doses delivered even if it means spending 10x as we would normally need to spend on it. The opportunity cost of counting coppers on the vaccine is absolutely massive.
What do you class as 'the eligible population'?
The 54m adult population in the country (some say 53m, others say 55m so I split the difference!).
In better news, we've now covered 9.2% of the eligible population with at least one dose of the vaccine. Should hit 10% tomorrow. Barring supply issues we now have a large enough distribution network in place or coming into place to do 4m jabs every week IMO so everything is now down to supply, supply, supply. Whatever AZ needs the government should be facilitating to get doses delivered even if it means spending 10x as we would normally need to spend on it. The opportunity cost of counting coppers on the vaccine is absolutely massive.
The thing is, the length of the lockdown is no longer dependent on vaccination numbers. Read the press. Ministers are now spinning for the summer. SAGE are setting out their stall for post vaccination lockdown.
There's going to be an almightly clash between the party and the cabinet in February/March, and the party is going to lose.
And we are going to be in lockdown, for better or worse, until the summer. Possibly. Or longer. They do not know. They are promising nothing.
It was never going to be based on vaccination numbers. It was always going to be based on hospitalisation numbers, indirectly that is based on the number of people with partial or full immunity in key age demographics as they are less likely to end up in hospital. By the time we get to May/June the case for any kind of major lockdown is going to be almost non-existent unless there is a vaccine evading mutation in circulation. By the beginning of June we should be close to herd immunity through vaccination and prior infections, the number of symptomatic cases will be very tiny and the number of people being hospitalised everyday from this will be vanishingly small. If the scientists are asking for continued lockdown measures at that point the government will rightly tell them to do one, the people will simply ignore the rules.
I fear you underestimate how obsessed Johnson and Co are.
Read the press. Read his comments. He and his cabinet are completely at sea mentally. He cannot and will not make a decision until the scientists have given him the go ahead. They won't. Ever. Indeed they are shaking him with new bits of alarm. And so he will not make a decision.
Look at the press today. All commitments to everything have been removed, and more draconian measures are being imposed. Its completely open ended. There is no timetable, there is no plan, there is nothing.
It's quite simple. I love our history, heritage and culture - the stories of how we became who we are, warts and all - and I don't want to see it desecrated.
The rest of it is a strong detestation for narcissism and self-absorption, the contradictory illogical bullshit one feels obliged to agree with (on pain of being called a bigot) and being preached at by the self-righteous and hypocritical, which I react to.
Who is the 'our' you refer to?
The history of the United Kingdom.
Is that the land mass, the constitutional entity or the people who have resided in said Kingdom over the years?
All different, and in the latter case, millions of different versions.
For example, do you celebrate the struggle for an independent Ireland that occurred within the Kingdom? While at the same time celebrating its suppression?
Which side in the Civil War do you celebrate? The execution of Charles and the restoration?
In better news, we've now covered 9.2% of the eligible population with at least one dose of the vaccine. Should hit 10% tomorrow. Barring supply issues we now have a large enough distribution network in place or coming into place to do 4m jabs every week IMO so everything is now down to supply, supply, supply. Whatever AZ needs the government should be facilitating to get doses delivered even if it means spending 10x as we would normally need to spend on it. The opportunity cost of counting coppers on the vaccine is absolutely massive.
The thing is, the length of the lockdown is no longer dependent on vaccination numbers. Read the press. Ministers are now spinning for the summer. SAGE are setting out their stall for post vaccination lockdown.
There's going to be an almightly clash between the party and the cabinet in February/March, and the party is going to lose.
And we are going to be in lockdown, for better or worse, until the summer. Possibly. Or longer. They do not know. They are promising nothing.
I think they'll keep us all locked up at least until the entirety of phase one of the JCVI plan has been completed. The argument against easing restrictions will then switch to keeping the young out of hospitals (there are less of them, but the new excuses will be that the staff are spent and need time to recover, to say nothing of starting work on the treatment backlogs,) and the threat of Long Covid. There probably won't be substantial easing until the entire adult population has been lanced, which could take until anywhere between the end of June and the end of September, and as per earlier discussions we'll probably be stuck with masks until at least Spring 2022 and quite possibly forever. Even if Covid can be forced down to manageable levels, both it and flu will get worse come next Autumn, which is all the excuse that will be needed to punish us all for breathing all over again.
It's quite simple. I love our history, heritage and culture - the stories of how we became who we are, warts and all - and I don't want to see it desecrated.
The rest of it is a strong detestation for narcissism and self-absorption, the contradictory illogical bullshit one feels obliged to agree with (on pain of being called a bigot) and being preached at by the self-righteous and hypocritical, which I react to.
But @Casino_Royale you appear to get enraged about the removal of *any* statue.
I wouldn't be happy if statues of actual British heroes, people who are actually part of our national myth, were taken down. The likes of Churchill, Boudica, Darwin, Kings and Queens, etc.
But why do you care if a statue of some random slaver is taken down? Nobody cares about them. They have no historical or emotional value. Why?
Or is it simply to fight back at your enemy, the woke?
A bad question, because there's very few statues of "random slavers," or if there are lots, name some. Even Colston was only there in the first place because he was the one slaver in a hundred who devoted a lot of his earnings to serious and seriously beneficial charitable works. And he was rather a good statue, and these statues won't be replaced with other things of equal interest, variety and merit. Colston's much more evil boss incidentally was James II of whom there is a Grinling Gibbons statue in Trafalgar Square. It is undeniable that the UK slave trade was an enterprise of monstrous evil, but wankers attacking statues achieves what, in your view?
I don't think wankers should attack statues at all. I am a big fan of statues and public art generally.
However if the City of London or Bristol City Council wants to remove some, I don't really care.
Does anyone have a list of the statues the City wants to remove?
It's quite simple. I love our history, heritage and culture - the stories of how we became who we are, warts and all - and I don't want to see it desecrated.
The rest of it is a strong detestation for narcissism and self-absorption, the contradictory illogical bullshit one feels obliged to agree with (on pain of being called a bigot) and being preached at by the self-righteous and hypocritical, which I react to.
2m per day is really low. I think there will be days in the UK when we reach the under 50s when we hit those kinds of figures in single day here.
14m per week?!
Yeah, under 50s is a huge group and as long as there is supply we're going to have a huge amount of capacity in place when that group becomes eligible. I know I'd go and queue up for it on day one, basically everyone I know is looking to do the same. The demand is going to be mental and we will have the infrastructure to deliver that many by then.
It's quite simple. I love our history, heritage and culture - the stories of how we became who we are, warts and all - and I don't want to see it desecrated.
The rest of it is a strong detestation for narcissism and self-absorption, the contradictory illogical bullshit one feels obliged to agree with (on pain of being called a bigot) and being preached at by the self-righteous and hypocritical, which I react to.
But @Casino_Royale you appear to get enraged about the removal of *any* statue.
I wouldn't be happy if statues of actual British heroes, people who are actually part of our national myth, were taken down. The likes of Churchill, Boudica, Darwin, Kings and Queens, etc.
But why do you care if a statue of some random slaver is taken down? Nobody cares about them. They have no historical or emotional value. Why?
Or is it simply to fight back at your enemy, the woke?
That's not true. I would object to statues or monuments that are prima face offensive. I disagreed with a plaque in a church in Dorchester that celebrated the suppression of a slave rebellion, and used the n-word too. Nor do I feel comfortable with those that show someone of a certain race in public in a subservient position - and there is one on the frieze of the Royal Exchange, for instance.
But I have a traditional conservative attitude to statues and monuments that have been there for a long time, and I think the test should be higher the longer it has been up there. The change should be minimal and it should be absolutely proportionate to the architecture, history and heritage, which should otherwise be conserved.
When I put up a strong defence it's because I think the "problem" they are argued to cause is non-existent (and therefore it's a strawman) or because I think someone is simply looking for villiany (and advancing tenuous arguments to do so) because they want the notoriety for themselves, which I see as narcissistic and selfish.
This isn't a fantasy either. We've seen buildings named after William Gladstone (one of our greatest prime ministers), David Hume (a pillar of the Scottish enlightenment) and Baden Powell (founder of the scout movement that gives pleasures to millions of children) all come under attack in recent months, as well as generals involved in Victorian Wars, just because offence archeologists have found attitudes or statements they made during their lives that are non-U by modern standards somewhere in their past.
Well, balls to that. They don't get to make unilateral (and irrevocable) decisions like that just to satisfy some inner need they have for achievement and attention off the back of a trendy movement.
Comments
Years after their famous falling out, they had reconciled and embarked on an equally-famous correspondence.
On his deathbed that day, the last words that Adams (allegedly) spoke were, "Thomas Jefferson still lives".
Which was NOT true, the Sage of Monticello had just passed away. But sums up how a TRUE president & patriot thought and felt.
The ancients were really good at declension and declinism and decline, not like our sad post-lapsarian mimicry...
https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1352325570147790850?s=20
A quick Google also tells me some poor buggers tried to petition the Government to have the Roch and Irwell dredged back in 2016, getting a rather sad 68 signatures. I doubt this worked, so in the absence of other information, I am going to make the leap that these rivers still haven't been dredged, so the base of the rivers have just been left to rise and rise - so hardly surprising that this happens when it pisses it down.
You're so confident that your precious EU would never do anything wrong aren't you? It might be nice if you had the good manners to apologise for jumping down my throat when it's clear you knew less than nothing about the issue.
There were people jumping up and down saying that the flooding in Fishlake last year was caused by lack of dredging.
Except...the river is tidal. Dredging below sea level doesn't do much.
Slowing down the floods is what is needed. Better management of uplands, and less run off from tarmac.
Building houses in a place that floods does two things - it adds another asset that has to be defended (inevitably not against every conceivable flood) and adds risk to everyone downstream.
Stupid idea.
On Amazon TV, so maybe tricky for some to catch yet.
https://twitter.com/LeaderMcConnell/status/1352317412226568198
Doesn't have the fans Trump has, could be Turtle soup in the forthcoming GOP civil war.
When they rebuilt, they put the new houses (permanent & vacation) up on stilts, leaving the ground floor as a car port.
That way, the next time there was a tidal surge, it swept across the island but did NOT take out the houses or flood them.
What I am doing is laughing at you for blaming flooding on the EU.
https://fullfact.org/online/EU-dredging-floods/
https://twitter.com/BBCWalesNews/status/1352336602614419461
As for the situation within the Republican Party, methinks that Mitch's side is increasing relative to You-Know-Who.
Real question I think is, is Chuck Schumer even in the same league?
So far, he's been compared unfavorably to his predecessor, Harry Reid. Personally am hopeful he will rise to the challenge. AND prove that he can hold his own AND work together with President Biden and Minority Leader McConnell, as well as with Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Harris.
Because America - and the world - needs it. Badly - or rather goodly!
You're welcome.
It's quite simple. I love our history, heritage and culture - the stories of how we became who we are, warts and all - and I don't want to see it desecrated.
The rest of it is a strong detestation for narcissism and self-absorption, the contradictory illogical bullshit one feels obliged to agree with (on pain of being called a bigot) and being preached at by the self-righteous and hypocritical, which I react to.
With respect to separation of powers, there ARE some exceptions built into the system. For example, presidential veto and VP as Senate president. Also role of House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem(pore) in presidential succession, and (as we've just seen) congressional certification of presidential & VP elections.
So, over time, the world's rivers will simply disappear, right? Because that's the logical conclusion of what you've just written.
Back in the real world, there are complex interplays: rivers often erode their beds and their banks, naturally increasing their capacity. Locks and levees and concrete embankments further affect the flow of water.
Dredging cures all ills apparently.
Dredging does two main things - firstly it increases the capacity of rivers to hold water (this of course doesn't 'make it worse', it makes it better all round). The second is to increase flow through the dredged area. If that increases the risk of flooding downstream, the answer is fairly simple - dredge there too. You are trying to facilitate the flow of water into the sea. If downstream, flooding doesn't matter so much, don't dredge there.
Just watched the JFK film with Costner from 1991. Excellent story and well made film. It does indicate how easy it is to fall into the conspiracy thories surrounding it. does also explain how easy to dupe a lot of people about the result of an election perhaps.
The EU rules were sometimes used as an *excuse* not to do anything. By people who wanted the budget to spend on other things.
In Oxfordshire, where I was brought up, after some bad floods a while back, suddenly all the small brooks, streams etc were massively cleared. Almost over night.
Flu deaths vary considerably from year to year but I think the yearly average is something like 15,000, most of which presumably take place during the usual annual Great NHS Winter Crisis™. Emotionally blackmailing the public into face rag use to ease the burden on nurses, not to mention saving grannies from a nasty death which could otherwise be pinned on Joe Public's selfishness for refusing to wear said rag, ought not to be terribly difficult - and it's potentially a big win for the Government. They might be able to improve hospital performance significantly, without having to spend any extra money at all, just by freeing up a load of beds that might otherwise be blocked by spluttering octogenarians.
That's not the way it works. Politicians follow people.
If it's a vote winner to remove mask restrictions*, then mask restrictions will go.
* Hint: it will be a vote winner
One thing you have to be careful of is that dredging embanked rivers too frequently eventually causes damage to the embankment, even with the normal stepped profile. It also increases erosion, adding yet more sediment. In a typical river the flood plain has a very much larger capacity than the normal channel anyway. This is even true of stepped embankments where the 'flood plain' is the normally dry area.
The best idea is to stop the silt getting into the system by managing the land better. In the case of the Irwell, that means the moors above Rossendale.
It's like stopping brushing your teeth, and then loudly complaining about how food these days is causing more and more tooth decay. Yes, brushing may not cure all ills, but it's a lot better than no fucking brushing at all - you'd hope that would be understandable to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
Do you actually even know *why* you're against dredging, other than the fact that the EU, presumably with the acquiescence of the Scottish Government, are against it?
Otherwise, you're gonna have a situation on your hands.
Here in WA State, we've recently had some experience with dam removals to restore old salmon runs. Which have resulted in significant changes downstream, mostly beneficial but also new realities.
I don't believe that an excuse has yet been found to blame all of this on Westminster, but I'm sure it won't be too long in coming.
"Boris's latest b***s up: Passengers fume after waiting in queues 'with no social distancing' for more than an hour at Heathrow in fourth day of chaos after negative coronavirus test rule was enforced
WHO health worker Alvaro Garbayo was in one queue and stunned by the chaos
Officials issued more than 30 fines at London Heathrow Airport on the first day
People can be fined a minimum of £500 for not complying with the rules
Queues built up in immigration hall with some travellers reporting hour wait"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9172105/Are-trying-infected-Passengers-fume-waiting-Heathrow-queues.html
Moral of the story: most fines are no punishment for the rich, penalties which mean they have to reorganise their life have much more of an impact
(Ironically, if the Dem-leaning conspiracy theorists are to be believed, this was part of a GOP conspiracy to steal the election for Trump.)
Trump also shot himself in the foot with his performance in the first debate, boorishly shouting down Biden rather than letting him speak and reveal he had nothing to say.
So this was an election the President could easily have won, were it not for Donald Trump.
This is about maintenance - prevention not cure. A river that has more capacity, can take a greater degree of rainfall. That doesn't mean that there are not other beneficial activities, or that we should dredge the rivers all the time, or that we should build on flood plains. These arguments however, are still tangential to the main point.
There's going to be an almightly clash between the party and the cabinet in February/March, and the party is going to lose.
And we are going to be in lockdown, for better or worse, until the summer. Possibly. Or longer. They do not know.
They are promising nothing.
Roger just IS Sergeant Wilson.
I wouldn't be happy if statues of actual British heroes, people who are actually part of our national myth, were taken down. The likes of Churchill, Boudica, Darwin, Kings and Queens, etc.
But why do you care if a statue of some random slaver is taken down? Nobody cares about them. They have no historical or emotional value. Why?
Or is it simply to fight back at your enemy, the woke?
Building on a flood plain is one thing, but building on a flood plain below a glacier with a volcano under it? Good thinking!
We were having a lighthearted discussion about flooding and you decided to pop up and blame it all on the EU. it's laughable.
If, with the aid of a more efficient than expected vaccination programme, they do finally manage to put a lid on this bloody virus then I do hope that foreign holidays get properly cancelled this year. The last bloody thing we need is yet more opportunities to import more and more exotic mutant forms of Plague.
Ending up with jab resistant Covid and having to "tweak" the sodding vaccine and start this palaver all over again in the Autumn is not a price worth paying for letting Mr & Mrs Lardarse and their porky tots jet off for their ten nights of sunburn and sangria in Malaga this July.
Again, the knee-jerk response to criticism of the EU from you guys is hilarious. Is anti-dredging the new PC? Is dredging racist?
My date of June 21 is looking better all the time!
As for the comments about dredging further downstream, you can't do that forever. The water has to go somewhere, and at some point it reaches the sea where no amount of dredging will help.
(Though still a bit inadequate.)
https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1352315815366946819
I am not yet convinced the Democrats have a straightforward POTUS election in 4 years either. They should because the current goings on suggest that the GOP will not motivate their vote through splits in the camp. In 2020, however it was all about getting Trump out. In 2024, it isn't.
If the GOP can stay solid and get a Trump tinged policy agenda & message without the narcissism and corruption it's going to be more interesting than it looks right now.
Read the press. Read his comments. He and his cabinet are completely at sea mentally. He cannot and will not make a decision until the scientists have given him the go ahead. They won't. Ever. Indeed they are shaking him with new bits of alarm. And so he will not make a decision.
Look at the press today. All commitments to everything have been removed, and more draconian measures are being imposed. Its completely open ended. There is no timetable, there is no plan, there is nothing.
All different, and in the latter case, millions of different versions.
For example, do you celebrate the struggle for an independent Ireland that occurred within the Kingdom? While at the same time celebrating its suppression?
Which side in the Civil War do you celebrate? The execution of Charles and the restoration?
However if the City of London or Bristol City Council wants to remove some, I don't really care.
Does anyone have a list of the statues the City wants to remove?
But I have a traditional conservative attitude to statues and monuments that have been there for a long time, and I think the test should be higher the longer it has been up there. The change should be minimal and it should be absolutely proportionate to the architecture, history and heritage, which should otherwise be conserved.
When I put up a strong defence it's because I think the "problem" they are argued to cause is non-existent (and therefore it's a strawman) or because I think someone is simply looking for villiany (and advancing tenuous arguments to do so) because they want the notoriety for themselves, which I see as narcissistic and selfish.
This isn't a fantasy either. We've seen buildings named after William Gladstone (one of our greatest prime ministers), David Hume (a pillar of the Scottish enlightenment) and Baden Powell (founder of the scout movement that gives pleasures to millions of children) all come under attack in recent months, as well as generals involved in Victorian Wars, just because offence archeologists have found attitudes or statements they made during their lives that are non-U by modern standards somewhere in their past.
Well, balls to that. They don't get to make unilateral (and irrevocable) decisions like that just to satisfy some inner need they have for achievement and attention off the back of a trendy movement.
Not on my watch.