politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Confessions of a door to door fireplace salesman
Options
Comments
-
He certainly is that.DavidL said:If Buttler brings this home (highly unlikely ) his status as the best ODI batsman in the world will be confirmed.
0 -
Gatwick is not a practical option if you want a hub airport. From the Davies synopsis: "The Gatwick scheme is feasible, but the additional capacity would be more focused on short-haul intra-European routes and the economic benefits considerably smaller."Barnesian said:
The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.Barnesian said:
In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).JosiasJessop said:
May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?Barnesian said:
Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.JosiasJessop said:
Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.Scott_P said:
Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.
As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers.
Besides, if the modelling was faulty and the process suspicious, surely that counts for Gatwick as much as it does LH3?
0 -
I just had a very pleasant lunch. Someone - who I won’t name but is well known in these circles - made the point that the one advantage of Brexit was that it had made us all realise how useless our politicians areSouthamObserver said:Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Johnson, Davis ... a cabinet of all the talents.
What an absolute shower.0 -
Oh I am sure one of us will say something dumb at some point and will be deservedly hammered for itJosiasJessop said:
Mr Tyndall: we appear to be agreeing a little too much recently. May I ask when normal service will be resumed?Richard_Tyndall said:
+1JosiasJessop said:
Well yes, they may. But we are talking about infrastructure that will last a century or more, and those businesses will cope. Basically: a BI-style project offers us a heck of a lot of opportunities for the future - and far more than the crowded corridors you mention.Sandpit said:
There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.JosiasJessop said:
In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.Sandpit said:
What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.JosiasJessop said:
To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.Sandpit said:
Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!JosiasJessop said:
Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.Scott_P said:
To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
I certainly won't take any bets on which of us it will be!0 -
No. On the contrary. The process and modelling was slanted to favour Heathrow. There was an exchange of key senior people between the DoT and Heathrow Airports plc. This will all come out in the planning appeals.JosiasJessop said:
Gatwick is not a practical option if you want a hub airport. From the Davies synopsis: "The Gatwick scheme is feasible, but the additional capacity would be more focused on short-haul intra-European routes and the economic benefits considerably smaller."Barnesian said:
The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.Barnesian said:
In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).JosiasJessop said:
May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?Barnesian said:
Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.JosiasJessop said:
Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.Scott_P said:
Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.
As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers.
Besides, if the modelling was faulty and the process suspicious, surely that counts for Gatwick as much as it does LH3?0 -
Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?Richard_Tyndall said:The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.
I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.0 -
May I ask if you have any skin in the game?Barnesian said:
No. On the contrary. The process and modelling was slanted to favour Heathrow. There was an exchange of key senior people between the DoT and Heathrow Airports plc. This will all come out in the planning appeals.JosiasJessop said:
Gatwick is not a practical option if you want a hub airport. From the Davies synopsis: "The Gatwick scheme is feasible, but the additional capacity would be more focused on short-haul intra-European routes and the economic benefits considerably smaller."Barnesian said:
The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.Barnesian said:
In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).JosiasJessop said:
May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?Barnesian said:
Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.JosiasJessop said:
Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.Scott_P said:
Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.
As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers.
Besides, if the modelling was faulty and the process suspicious, surely that counts for Gatwick as much as it does LH3?0 -
https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944
I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].0 -
Because he lives locally and prioritises his own interests above the country’s need for additional capacityJosiasJessop said:
May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?Barnesian said:
Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.JosiasJessop said:
Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.Scott_P said:0 -
Fire Williamson, promote Morduant to SoS for Defence, bring in Stewart at DfID*.
* Although I'd make DfID a sub-cabinet post at the Foreign Office. Not clear why giving away taxpayers money should rate a seat at the big table.0 -
Most of them are extremely capable but twice now we have put them in a near impossible situation.Charles said:
I just had a very pleasant lunch. Someone - who I won’t name but is well known in these circles - made the point that the one advantage of Brexit was that it had made us all realise how useless our politicians areSouthamObserver said:Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Johnson, Davis ... a cabinet of all the talents.
What an absolute shower.
Not only Brexit, but an NOM government to enact it.
Not to say that this hasn't in turn put a particularly useless group front and centre.0 -
Mr. 1000, I agree. Mordaunt should be promoted on her way to becoming the next PM.0
-
No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.JosiasJessop said:
May I ask if you have any skin in the game?Barnesian said:
No. On the contrary. The process and modelling was slanted to favour Heathrow. There was an exchange of key senior people between the DoT and Heathrow Airports plc. This will all come out in the planning appeals.JosiasJessop said:
Gatwick is not a practical option if you want a hub airport. From the Davies synopsis: "The Gatwick scheme is feasible, but the additional capacity would be more focused on short-haul intra-European routes and the economic benefits considerably smaller."Barnesian said:
The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.Barnesian said:
In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).JosiasJessop said:
May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?Barnesian said:
Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.JosiasJessop said:
Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.Scott_P said:
Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.
As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers.
Besides, if the modelling was faulty and the process suspicious, surely that counts for Gatwick as much as it does LH3?
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
0 -
Off-topic:
With the end of VTEC (Virgin's) time in charge of East Coast, the new nationalised LNER have taken over today.
There are rumours that there have been some rather large price increases for some tickets.
It'll be interesting to see if these rumours are true, and the scale of the changes.0 -
I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.OblitusSumMe said:
Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?Richard_Tyndall said:The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.
I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.0 -
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.0 -
F1: post-race ramble:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/06/france-post-race-analysis-2018.html
I did notice something interesting when filling in my records. McLaren scored at every one of the first four races, and have failed to score at the last four. Not great.0 -
Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.Morris_Dancer said:https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944
I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].
Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.
I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.0 -
You do realise Barnes is under the flightpath?JosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.0 -
Also of course it isn't the birth date of Jesus, which would have been before 4 BC.kle4 said:
Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.Morris_Dancer said:https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944
I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].
Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.
I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
I think however originally it was meant to be 'Christian Era' and they substituted 'Common' when they decided that was still politically incorrect. (Also arguably inaccurate, as the global Christian Era probably only kicked off in the nineteenth century.)0 -
Ferrovial's accounting is very... errr... opaque.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.0 -
Mr. kle4, quite.
Trajan was arguably the greatest emperor, though we know surprisingly little detail about him. After his death, new emperors were wished to be as virtuous as Trajan.
Mr. Doethur, indeed.0 -
That's a good point ...Charles said:
You do realise Barnes is under the flightpath?JosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.0 -
Britain should be a nuclear power and capable of defending itself - that's it. No poncing about. No need for Trident. At £1bn per hospital, we can build 25 hospitals for each Trident!Richard_Tyndall said:
I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.OblitusSumMe said:
Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?Richard_Tyndall said:The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.
I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.0 -
That seems contradictory. You're saying we should be, and should not be, a nuclear power?surby said:
Britain should be a nuclear power and capable of defending itself - that's it. No poncing about. No need for Trident. At £1bn per hospital, we can build 25 hospitals for each Trident!Richard_Tyndall said:
I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.OblitusSumMe said:
Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?Richard_Tyndall said:The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.
I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.0 -
I think Gavin is trying to earn himself some publicity after his disastrous outing Richard Madley...0
-
I am a Socialist and I support expansion of both the airports. Capitalists would love it and why not ? It creates jobs.JosiasJessop said:
Gatwick is not a practical option if you want a hub airport. From the Davies synopsis: "The Gatwick scheme is feasible, but the additional capacity would be more focused on short-haul intra-European routes and the economic benefits considerably smaller."Barnesian said:
The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.JosiasJessop said:
LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.Barnesian said:
In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).JosiasJessop said:
May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?Barnesian said:
Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.JosiasJessop said:
Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.Scott_P said:
Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.
As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers.
Besides, if the modelling was faulty and the process suspicious, surely that counts for Gatwick as much as it does LH3?
P.S. I use both the airports though Heathrow more frequently. I use LHR about once a month.0 -
John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.
I just thought I'd mention that.0 -
Well, yes. But I doubt you'd like some of the methods the leaders back then used to avoid the 'dicking about'. Health and safety gets a lot of bad press, but not necessarily if you're one of the people being kept safe.Morris_Dancer said:https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944
I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].
Heck, China nowadays is bad enough, but at least they've stopped burying thousands of the workers in the world-famous structure they're building ... 0 -
He's an *interesting* character. I've no idea if he's a genius or just insane. Or both.rcs1000 said:John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.
I just thought I'd mention that.
edit: also, $105,000 is a rather specific sum. Why not just $100,000 ? 0 -
I am not contradicting myself at all. You have been mugged by the Military Industrial lobby. We already have nuclear submarines, nuclear capable bombers, battlefield tactical weapons etc. etc. This does not mean we have to put all our eggs [ 512 of them ? ] in one [ Trident ] basket.ydoethur said:
That seems contradictory. You're saying we should be, and should not be, a nuclear power?surby said:
Britain should be a nuclear power and capable of defending itself - that's it. No poncing about. No need for Trident. At £1bn per hospital, we can build 25 hospitals for each Trident!Richard_Tyndall said:
I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.OblitusSumMe said:
Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?Richard_Tyndall said:The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.
I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.
I am equally aware of the intellectual blackmail from my Union brothers and sisters. Saving 6000 jobs. How many jobs will alternative investments create ?0 -
Is that the capital infrastructure cost, or the long-term operational costs, including things like staffing? It'd be good to compare like-for-like. It's no good building hospitals if you cannot afford to run them.surby said:
Britain should be a nuclear power and capable of defending itself - that's it. No poncing about. No need for Trident. At £1bn per hospital, we can build 25 hospitals for each Trident!Richard_Tyndall said:
I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.OblitusSumMe said:
Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?Richard_Tyndall said:The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.
I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.
Instead of saying 'this money would buy xx new hospitals, I wish people would instead say: this money would pay for xxxx new hospital beds, or xxxxxxx GP appointments, per year.'0 -
You do realise that Trident is the only actual nuclear weapons system we have? Or has that passed you by?surby said:
I am not contradicting myself at all. You have been mugged by the Military Industrial lobby. We already have nuclear submarines, nuclear capable bombers, battlefield tactical weapons etc. etc. This does not mean we have to put all our eggs [ 512 of them ? ] in one [ Trident ] basket.ydoethur said:
That seems contradictory. You're saying we should be, and should not be, a nuclear power?surby said:
Britain should be a nuclear power and capable of defending itself - that's it. No poncing about. No need for Trident. At £1bn per hospital, we can build 25 hospitals for each Trident!Richard_Tyndall said:
I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.OblitusSumMe said:
Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?Richard_Tyndall said:The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.
I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.
I am equally aware of the intellectual blackmail from my Union brothers and sisters. Saving 6000 jobs. How many jobs will alternative investments create ?0 -
Outing of, or outing with???GIN1138 said:I think Gavin is trying to earn himself some publicity after his disastrous outing Richard Madley...
0 -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.0 -
But business is also located in a lopsided manner in and around London. The airport comes with it. To some extent France also has this problem but TGV helps to disperse it somewhat. Germany does not have this problem as there are many large cities and none dominates. Probably, this was helped by Berlin being divided for so long.Richard_Tyndall said:
One of the great failings of successive governments - highlighted by this one - is the failure to disperse the growth in air traffic across the UK. We need much more long haul investment in other airports around the country.williamglenn said:
BI would make expansion of airports like Birmingham and Bristol more feasible rather than having a cluster of airports that were vaguely ‘London’.Sandpit said:
There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.JosiasJessop said:
In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.Sandpit said:
What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.JosiasJessop said:
To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.Sandpit said:
Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!JosiasJessop said:
Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.Scott_P said:
To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.0 -
“Give Me £20bn Or I’ll Bring You Down” says man who lost a battle of wits against Richard Madeley.0
-
With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. It's the 24th June in the 67th year of the reign of QEII, to take our current calendar system back to its pre-Christian roots.kle4 said:
Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.Morris_Dancer said:https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944
I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].
Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.
I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
I do wonder how far the Chinese might try to encourage other countries to use their calendar system in preference to the Christian system.0 -
That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...0 -
He's certainly insane. Genius? I'll reserve judgement.JosiasJessop said:
He's an *interesting* character. I've no idea if he's a genius or just insane. Or both.rcs1000 said:John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.
I just thought I'd mention that.
edit: also, $105,000 is a rather specific sum. Why not just $100,000 ?
Have you read this article: https://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-john-mcafees-last-stand/0 -
That was not the main attraction I understand. Guaranteed Scotland slots was the key. However, the promises were similar to the PMs regarding Brexit. Depending on who she was talking to.Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-runway-snp-promised-16-000-new-jobs-in-exchange-for-backing-project-t2b8s5crl0 -
Possibly also because the old West Germany had no one dominant city - Frankfurt was probably the most significant metropolis, but Bonn was the seat of government and Cologne was where most of the media hung out.surby said:
But business is also located in a lopsided manner in and around London. The airport comes with it. To some extent France also has this problem but TGV helps to disperse it somewhat. Germany does not have this problem as there are many large cities and none dominates. Probably, this was helped by Berlin being divided for so long.Richard_Tyndall said:
One of the great failings of successive governments - highlighted by this one - is the failure to disperse the growth in air traffic across the UK. We need much more long haul investment in other airports around the country.williamglenn said:
BI would make expansion of airports like Birmingham and Bristol more feasible rather than having a cluster of airports that were vaguely ‘London’.Sandpit said:
There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.JosiasJessop said:
In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.Sandpit said:
What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.JosiasJessop said:
To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.Sandpit said:
Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!JosiasJessop said:
Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.Scott_P said:
To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.0 -
Almost certainly bollocks.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
With the end of VTEC (Virgin's) time in charge of East Coast, the new nationalised LNER have taken over today.
There are rumours that there have been some rather large price increases for some tickets.
It'll be interesting to see if these rumours are true, and the scale of the changes.
The timetable changes twice a year, in May and December, the prices change once a year on the first working day of January.
Cannot possibly see fare changes outside that timetable as screws up cross franchise ticketing.0 -
"Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"JosiasJessop said:
That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/
This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.0 -
That was my first thought as well. However that doesn't mean they haven't done it, and promotions etc might have been cut.ManchesterKurt said:
Almost certainly bollocks.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
With the end of VTEC (Virgin's) time in charge of East Coast, the new nationalised LNER have taken over today.
There are rumours that there have been some rather large price increases for some tickets.
It'll be interesting to see if these rumours are true, and the scale of the changes.
The timetable changes twice a year, in May and December, the prices change once a year on the first working day of January.
Cannot possibly see fare changes outside that timetable as screws up cross franchise ticketing.0 -
I'm not sure Gavin is all that intelligent to be honest... And there's something about him that reminds me a bit of Frank Spencer...SirNorfolkPassmore said:“Give Me £20bn Or I’ll Bring You Down” says man who lost a battle of wits against Richard Madeley.
0 -
The SNP will have seen have much they can trust Mrs May's promises. Let's see what happens tomorrow. I'm much more interested in persuading MPs than fellow PBers.surby said:
That was not the main attraction I understand. Guaranteed Scotland slots was the key. However, the promises were similar to the PMs regarding Brexit. Depending on who she was talking to.Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-runway-snp-promised-16-000-new-jobs-in-exchange-for-backing-project-t2b8s5crl0 -
Yes! That's it! Frank Spencer. I knew he reminded me of someone. It's the slightly slack mouth and general gormlessness.GIN1138 said:
I'm not sure Gavin is all that intelligent to be honest... And there's something about him that reminds me a bit of Frank Spencer...SirNorfolkPassmore said:“Give Me £20bn Or I’ll Bring You Down” says man who lost a battle of wits against Richard Madeley.
0 -
?Barnesian said:
"Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"JosiasJessop said:
That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/
This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
Zac Goldsmith?
*That* Zac Goldsmith?
If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.
Did you write to any other MPs?
BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.0 -
But can he sing Music of the Night?Barnesian said:
Yes! That's it! Frank Spencer. I knew he reminded me of someone. It's the slightly slack mouth and general gormlessness.GIN1138 said:
I'm not sure Gavin is all that intelligent to be honest... And there's something about him that reminds me a bit of Frank Spencer...SirNorfolkPassmore said:“Give Me £20bn Or I’ll Bring You Down” says man who lost a battle of wits against Richard Madeley.
0 -
I've always associated Mcafee with antivirus software..rcs1000 said:
He's certainly insane. Genius? I'll reserve judgement.JosiasJessop said:
He's an *interesting* character. I've no idea if he's a genius or just insane. Or both.rcs1000 said:John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.
I just thought I'd mention that.
edit: also, $105,000 is a rather specific sum. Why not just $100,000 ?
Have you read this article: https://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-john-mcafees-last-stand/0 -
Sounds as though he's been associated with all sorts of things:Pulpstar said:
I've always associated Mcafee with antivirus software..rcs1000 said:
He's certainly insane. Genius? I'll reserve judgement.JosiasJessop said:
He's an *interesting* character. I've no idea if he's a genius or just insane. Or both.rcs1000 said:John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.
I just thought I'd mention that.
edit: also, $105,000 is a rather specific sum. Why not just $100,000 ?
Have you read this article: https://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-john-mcafees-last-stand/
https://news.sky.com/story/john-mcafee-anti-virus-software-pioneer-claims-enemies-tried-to-kill-him-11413955
Indeed, sounds an all-round charmer. I'm surprised he supported Horse-shit rather than Trump.0 -
Yeah. The Belize situation is *odd*. But having looked into some of the stuff he did years ago, I do think he was a bit of a genius - though drugs have probably taken a toll.rcs1000 said:
He's certainly insane. Genius? I'll reserve judgement.JosiasJessop said:
He's an *interesting* character. I've no idea if he's a genius or just insane. Or both.rcs1000 said:John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.
I just thought I'd mention that.
edit: also, $105,000 is a rather specific sum. Why not just $100,000 ?
Have you read this article: https://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-john-mcafees-last-stand/
(Incidentally, some of the best but most inconsistent coders I have known have been recreational drug users. Brilliant for start-ups, terrible for big companies.)
I wish him good luck in his 2020 presidential election campaign ...0 -
You get your satisfaction by arguing on here. I get mine by trying to influence real world events. Though I must confess I do enjoy arguing on here as well.JosiasJessop said:
?Barnesian said:
"Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"JosiasJessop said:
That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/
This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
Zac Goldsmith?
*That* Zac Goldsmith?
If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.
Did you write to any other MPs?
BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on. It's good practice and it certainly helps me hone my arguments. 0 -
If he feels like that, he should definitely resign his seat and fight a totally ridiculous byelection.Barnesian said:
"Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"JosiasJessop said:
That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/
This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
Again.
Cock.0 -
Could you answer the question: did you write to other MPs (and an extension: which ones) ?Barnesian said:You get your satisfaction by arguing on here. I get mine by trying to influence real world events. Though I must confess I do enjoy arguing on here as well. (: It's good practice and it certainly helps me hone my arguments.
It just amuses me that you're taking part in the political shenanigans you decry.
And an equally important question when you strongly believe in something: what would it require for you to change your mind?
Oh, and I hope you don't find satisfaction in this particular matter. If we don't go ahead with LH3 we're looking at a worse solution, and one that will take at least another decade of arguing before a shovel hits the ground. I believe that would be harmful to the country.0 -
I hope he does but he definitely won't.rcs1000 said:
If he feels like that, he should definitely resign his seat and fight a totally ridiculous byelection.Barnesian said:
"Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"JosiasJessop said:
That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/
This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
Again.
Cock.0 -
Off-topic:
Blooming awful timing:
"A fire suppression system was close to being activated when fire tore through the Glasgow School of Art earlier this month, according to a trade body."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-445928820 -
0
-
Thasis use both Buddhist and Christian Era year identification. Which they use rather depends on the context!OblitusSumMe said:
With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. It's the 24th June in the 67th year of the reign of QEII, to take our current calendar system back to its pre-Christian roots.kle4 said:
Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.Morris_Dancer said:https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944
I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].
Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.
I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
I do wonder how far the Chinese might try to encourage other countries to use their calendar system in preference to the Christian system.
0 -
In the UK constitution, all MPs are supposed to represent all citizens. It is completely legitimate to write to whichever MP you want to.JosiasJessop said:
?Barnesian said:
"Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"JosiasJessop said:
That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/
This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
Zac Goldsmith?
*That* Zac Goldsmith?
If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.
Did you write to any other MPs?
BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.-2 -
I didn't write to my own MP (Zac) because he and I are as one on this. I choose carefully who I write to because I'm a great believer in maximising leverage and that's why I chose SNP MPs.JosiasJessop said:
Could you answer the question: did you write to other MPs (and an extension: which ones) ?Barnesian said:You get your satisfaction by arguing on here. I get mine by trying to influence real world events. Though I must confess I do enjoy arguing on here as well. (: It's good practice and it certainly helps me hone my arguments.
It just amuses me that you're taking part in the political shenanigans you decry.
And an equally important question when you strongly believe in something: what would it require for you to change your mind?
Oh, and I hope you don't find satisfaction in this particular matter. If we don't go ahead with LH3 we're looking at a worse solution, and one that will take at least another decade of arguing before a shovel hits the ground. I believe that would be harmful to the country.
I also wrote to several carefully chosen members of the Lords about Dignity in Dying. I manned a street stall in the EU referendum, knocked on 1000's of doors in many GEs, delivered tens of thousands of leaflets, persuaded one MP and several councillors to stand for office. I can't compete with Paul Dacre or Murdoch but I can do my little bit in trying to change the world. The alternative is to sit in the pub or on PB and just chat.
My position on Dignity in Dying is based on my view of human dignity and personal experience and I doubt I could be persuaded to change my mind. I think I could have been persuaded to vote Leave based on Germany's treatment of Greece but the gross anti-immigration stuff turned me off. I believe in nationalising the railways but I could be persuaded otherwise (but not by public bad, private good arguments). Short answer is - it depends.
A new runway at Gatwick can be built well within ten years - though Heathrow is lobbying against Gatwick being next in line, even after LHR3 is built.
https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/publicationfiles/business_and_community/all_public_publications/second_runway/airports_commission/gatwick_sd3_engineering_plans_final.pdf Read the executive summary
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/25/heathrow-doubts-new-analysis-shows-gatwick-expansion-better/0 -
Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....0
-
I thought they represented their constituents.Elliot said:
In the UK constitution, all MPs are supposed to represent all citizens. It is completely legitimate to write to whichever MP you want to.JosiasJessop said:
?Barnesian said:
"Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"JosiasJessop said:
That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/
This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
Zac Goldsmith?
*That* Zac Goldsmith?
If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.
Did you write to any other MPs?
BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.0 -
Fire him and then beef up the defence budget.Barnesian said:0 -
January is when regulated fares change. There are plenty of unregulated fares on LNER.ManchesterKurt said:
Almost certainly bollocks.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
With the end of VTEC (Virgin's) time in charge of East Coast, the new nationalised LNER have taken over today.
There are rumours that there have been some rather large price increases for some tickets.
It'll be interesting to see if these rumours are true, and the scale of the changes.
The timetable changes twice a year, in May and December, the prices change once a year on the first working day of January.
Cannot possibly see fare changes outside that timetable as screws up cross franchise ticketing.0 -
Archaeologists and historians work with colleagues all over the world and, in the case of the Mediterranean ancient civilisations, particularly with those from Arabic countries. They are content to use our dating system but it was and is felt that referencing the Christian religion specifically is insensitive and could cause unnecessary strains in professional relationships.kle4 said:
Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.Morris_Dancer said:https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944
I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].
Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.
I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
I have absolutely no issue with that position and think it is petty in the extreme to moan about it.0 -
Yes it is. I suspect that a lot of the time if someone appears to be mass emailing all MPs, or a huge number, it gets filed in the 'potentially trouble' folder by the admin, but if people want to take the trouble to contact an MP I see no reason they should not. It'd be more common to be a constituent, but some matters may not affect a constituency directly but the MP still has a say in the decision.Elliot said:
It is completely legitimate to write to whichever MP you want to.0 -
A little closer than earlier I see, but still no runoff sadly.surby said:http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-elections-2018/
Turkish elections0 -
"With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. "OblitusSumMe said:
With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. It's the 24th June in the 67th year of the reign of QEII, to take our current calendar system back to its pre-Christian roots.kle4 said:
Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.Morris_Dancer said:https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944
I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].
Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.
I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
I do wonder how far the Chinese might try to encourage other countries to use their calendar system in preference to the Christian system.
It should be, but it isn't. I looked into doing this once for an Operating System (we were thinking of storing time as a number with a very historic epoch), and it is a 'there be dragons' situation if you want worldwide accuracy.
First of all, the easy things: the same second occurs everywhere around the world at the same time, and the 'day' is a common division of time: it is therefore easy to allocate each day and second a number - let's say a Julian Day.
The problem comes in converting local times to that number and vice versa. In the case of the west, this involves (amongst other things) the Julian to Gregorian calendar: except that happened at different times: e.g. 1580s in France and Spain, 1918 in Russia. Which means to convert 'local' time to 'standard', you need to know the locale. And then work out which territories were invaded and taken over in the meantime ...
Then there are the problems with leap seconds, leap years and other eccentricities. Oh, and all the non-western calendars.
This probably only matters seriously to astronomers, which was why we dropped it. 0 -
To the current leadership in Poland: the blacks are beating you , like they did last week.MarqueeMark said:Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....
0 -
They do both. How else could they vote on things which may well have zero impact on their constituency? "Sorry, Prime Minster, but my constituency is landlocked, I don't know why you're asking me to vote on this fisheries policy"RobD said:
I thought they represented their constituents.
0 -
+1Barnesian said:
I didn't write to my own MP (Zac) because he and I are as one on this. I choose carefully who I write to because I'm a great believer in maximising leverage and that's why I chose SNP MPs.JosiasJessop said:
Could you answer the question: did you write to other MPs (and an extension: which ones) ?Barnesian said:You get your satisfaction by arguing on here. I get mine by trying to influence real world events. Though I must confess I do enjoy arguing on here as well. (: It's good practice and it certainly helps me hone my arguments.
It just amuses me that you're taking part in the political shenanigans you decry.
And an equally important question when you strongly believe in something: what would it require for you to change your mind?
Oh, and I hope you don't find satisfaction in this particular matter. If we don't go ahead with LH3 we're looking at a worse solution, and one that will take at least another decade of arguing before a shovel hits the ground. I believe that would be harmful to the country.
I also wrote to several carefully chosen members of the Lords about Dignity in Dying. I manned a street stall in the EU referendum, knocked on 1000's of doors in many GEs, delivered tens of thousands of leaflets, persuaded one MP and several councillors to stand for office. I can't compete with Paul Dacre or Murdoch but I can do my little bit in trying to change the world. The alternative is to sit in the pub or on PB and just chat.
My position on Dignity in Dying is based on my view of human dignity and personal experience and I doubt I could be persuaded to change my mind. I think I could have been persuaded to vote Leave based on Germany's treatment of Greece but the gross anti-immigration stuff turned me off. I believe in nationalising the railways but I could be persuaded otherwise (but not by public bad, private good arguments). Short answer is - it depends.
A new runway at Gatwick can be built well within ten years - though Heathrow is lobbying against Gatwick being next in line, even after LHR3 is built.
https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/publicationfiles/business_and_community/all_public_publications/second_runway/airports_commission/gatwick_sd3_engineering_plans_final.pdf Read the executive summary
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/25/heathrow-doubts-new-analysis-shows-gatwick-expansion-better/0 -
Because their constituents need food to live?kle4 said:
They do both. How else could they vote on things which may well have zero impact on their constituency? "Sorry, Prime Minster, but my constituency is landlocked, I don't know why you're asking me to vote on this fisheries policy"RobD said:
I thought they represented their constituents.
0 -
Ah, so you admit to taking part in political shenanigans then!Barnesian said:
I didn't write to my own MP (Zac) because he and I are as one on this. I choose carefully who I write to because I'm a great believer in maximising leverage and that's why I chose SNP MPs.JosiasJessop said:
Could you answer the question: did you write to other MPs (and an extension: which ones) ?Barnesian said:You get your satisfaction by arguing on here. I get mine by trying to influence real world events. Though I must confess I do enjoy arguing on here as well. (: It's good practice and it certainly helps me hone my arguments.
It just amuses me that you're taking part in the political shenanigans you decry.
And an equally important question when you strongly believe in something: what would it require for you to change your mind?
Oh, and I hope you don't find satisfaction in this particular matter. If we don't go ahead with LH3 we're looking at a worse solution, and one that will take at least another decade of arguing before a shovel hits the ground. I believe that would be harmful to the country.
I also wrote to several carefully chosen members of the Lords about Dignity in Dying. I manned a street stall in the EU referendum, knocked on 1000's of doors in many GEs, delivered tens of thousands of leaflets, persuaded one MP and several councillors to stand for office. I can't compete with Paul Dacre or Murdoch but I can do my little bit in trying to change the world. The alternative is to sit in the pub or on PB and just chat.
My position on Dignity in Dying is based on my view of human dignity and personal experience and I doubt I could be persuaded to change my mind. I think I could have been persuaded to vote Leave based on Germany's treatment of Greece but the gross anti-immigration stuff turned me off. I believe in nationalising the railways but I could be persuaded otherwise (but not by public bad, private good arguments). Short answer is - it depends.
A new runway at Gatwick can be built well within ten years - though Heathrow is lobbying against Gatwick being next in line, even after LHR3 is built.
(Snip)
A runway in Gatwick will not be built in ten years, because another set of NIMBYs will start complaining about it, and stifling it, in the same manner you are. And the Gatwick lot of form, for example the deal with West Sussex Council that has stopped a seconf runway for decades. Yes, it runs out next year.
They're just more successful than you.
0 -
Indeed.Elliot said:
In the UK constitution, all MPs are supposed to represent all citizens. It is completely legitimate to write to whichever MP you want to.JosiasJessop said:
?Barnesian said:
"Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"JosiasJessop said:
That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/
This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
Zac Goldsmith?
*That* Zac Goldsmith?
If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.
Did you write to any other MPs?
BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.
But it does make it look like lobbying, i.e. 'political shenanigans' 0 -
Yes it is petty, but that's my point - they are still referencing the Christian religion specifically even if they say BCE rather than BC, since they are the same.Richard_Tyndall said:
Archaeologists and historians work with colleagues all over the world and, in the case of the Mediterranean ancient civilisations, particularly with those from Arabic countries. They are content to use our dating system but it was and is felt that referencing the Christian religion specifically is insensitive and could cause unnecessary strains in professional relationships.kle4 said:
Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.Morris_Dancer said:https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944
I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].
Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.
I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
I have absolutely no issue with that position and think it is petty in the extreme to moan about it.
And one, are people not allowed to have pet peeves anymore? I had no idea you were the arbiter of what people are allowed to find mildly irritating - not every complaint about something means it is considered to a major issue by the complainant, and only an idiot would think that.
And for two I've used both references, thank you, so you can save the patronising sanctimony for where it is warranted - what I object to is the pretence it is some noble change for the sake of sensitivity as you have just done. It's not, it is a petty little change which doesn't really change anything. I find changing things without really changing things to be mildly irriating.
Key word there was mild. Certainly people getting uppity and holier than thou about others having a pet peeve is far more irritating. Why don't you get self rightously annoyed that I praised the building policies of Qin Shi Huang while you are at it. The man was an extreme tyrant, how dare I suggest he'd make a good builder to follow the example of? And to dare be peeved by historical referencing, in defence of christian dogma no doubt despite being an atheist, how dare I?0 -
.
https://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-timeJosiasJessop said:
"With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. "OblitusSumMe said:
With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. It's the 24th June in the 67th year of the reign of QEII, to take our current calendar system back to its pre-Christian roots.kle4 said:
Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.Morris_Dancer said:https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944
I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].
Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.
I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
I do wonder how far the Chinese might try to encourage other countries to use their calendar system in preference to the Christian system.
It should be, but it isn't. I looked into doing this once for an Operating System (we were thinking of storing time as a number with a very historic epoch), and it is a 'there be dragons' situation if you want worldwide accuracy.
First of all, the easy things: the same second occurs everywhere around the world at the same time, and the 'day' is a common division of time: it is therefore easy to allocate each day and second a number - let's say a Julian Day.
The problem comes in converting local times to that number and vice versa. In the case of the west, this involves (amongst other things) the Julian to Gregorian calendar: except that happened at different times: e.g. 1580s in France and Spain, 1918 in Russia. Which means to convert 'local' time to 'standard', you need to know the locale. And then work out which territories were invaded and taken over in the meantime ...
Then there are the problems with leap seconds, leap years and other eccentricities. Oh, and all the non-western calendars.
This probably only matters seriously to astronomers, which was why we dropped it. 0 -
The local MP certainly gives the impression that she’s not interested in anything from outside the constituency. Odd that, since she was once a professional lobbyist.
However she seems quite happy to put her name to anything which slags off the nearby LibDem run council.0 -
But they don't need fish for that, and even if they did, those directly affected surely deserve a great say? My constituents in coastal-hellhole-by-the-sea rely upon the fishing industry, some hillbillies in Dunny-on-the-wold have no cause to interfere with it.RobD said:
Because their constituents need food to live?kle4 said:
They do both. How else could they vote on things which may well have zero impact on their constituency? "Sorry, Prime Minster, but my constituency is landlocked, I don't know why you're asking me to vote on this fisheries policy"RobD said:
I thought they represented their constituents.
Apologies to Richard_Tyndall for daring not to show sufficient sympathy to those in coastal areas and areas of rural poverty. Culturally insensitive of me, and insensitivity is the key and must be treated with absolute seriousness at all times. As we all know, any comment is always made as if it is 100% the most important thing in someone's life, and if you complain about it it means you are seething in rage about it, how petty indeed.0 -
It turns out the 'Polish Plumber' doesn't exist in most of the UK with 96% of construction workers outside of SE England being British:MarqueeMark said:Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/migrantlabourforcewithintheconstructionindustry/2018-06-19
There is IMO an irony that those parts of the country with the highest cost property are also those parts most dependent upon exploited immigrant construction workers.0 -
Exploited ? An electrician will cost me £115 tomorrow.another_richard said:
It turns out the 'Polish Plumber' doesn't exist in most of the UK with 96% of construction workers outside of SE England being British:MarqueeMark said:Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/migrantlabourforcewithintheconstructionindustry/2018-06-19
There is IMO an irony that those parts of the country with the highest cost property are also those parts most dependent upon exploited immigrant construction workers.0 -
Haven't you heard, the UK is an 'Aid Superpower'.rcs1000 said:Fire Williamson, promote Morduant to SoS for Defence, bring in Stewart at DfID*.
* Although I'd make DfID a sub-cabinet post at the Foreign Office. Not clear why giving away taxpayers money should rate a seat at the big table.0 -
Do domestic repairs count as construction jobs?another_richard said:
It turns out the 'Polish Plumber' doesn't exist in most of the UK with 96% of construction workers outside of SE England being British:MarqueeMark said:Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/migrantlabourforcewithintheconstructionindustry/2018-06-19
There is IMO an irony that those parts of the country with the highest cost property are also those parts most dependent upon exploited immigrant construction workers.0 -
I would associate shenanigans with tit fir tat type deals, like the mentioned payment for Scottish tourism (if true).JosiasJessop said:
Indeed.Elliot said:
In the UK constitution, all MPs are supposed to represent all citizens. It is completely legitimate to write to whichever MP you want to.JosiasJessop said:
?Barnesian said:
"Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"JosiasJessop said:
That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...Barnesian said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:largeJosiasJessop said:
You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL.Barnesian said:No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.
With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/
This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
Zac Goldsmith?
*That* Zac Goldsmith?
If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.
Did you write to any other MPs?
BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.
But it does make it look like lobbying, i.e. 'political shenanigans'0 -
Today's Tesco Strawberry score is a strong nine:
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Perthshire
Fife
Lancashire
Nottinghamshire
Staffordshire
Cambrdigeshire
Kent
The important change being the absence of Herefordshire which leaves Kent as the only county to feature continuously.
Herefordshire makes partial amends by joining Kent in being a source of cherries.0 -
Interestingly, reports in the Scottish press have suggested that there were 5 or 6 small explosions from the GSA and other buildings in the complex area at least half an hour before the fire took hold. Of course, an area of Glasgow that could rapidly be turned into a profitable complex would ever be considered a target for arson.... .JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
Blooming awful timing:
"A fire suppression system was close to being activated when fire tore through the Glasgow School of Art earlier this month, according to a trade body."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-445928820 -
I wondered that but couldn't find the answer.Elliot said:
Do domestic repairs count as construction jobs?another_richard said:
It turns out the 'Polish Plumber' doesn't exist in most of the UK with 96% of construction workers outside of SE England being British:MarqueeMark said:Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/migrantlabourforcewithintheconstructionindustry/2018-06-19
There is IMO an irony that those parts of the country with the highest cost property are also those parts most dependent upon exploited immigrant construction workers.
I suspect that a lot of domestic repairs don't get counted irrespective of whatever heading they come under.0 -
“Went on fire” is I believe the local expression in Glasgow...OchEye said:
Interestingly, reports in the Scottish press have suggested that there were 5 or 6 small explosions from the GSA and other buildings in the complex area at least half an hour before the fire took hold. Of course, an area of Glasgow that could rapidly be turned into a profitable complex would ever be considered a target for arson.... .JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
Blooming awful timing:
"A fire suppression system was close to being activated when fire tore through the Glasgow School of Art earlier this month, according to a trade body."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-445928820 -
Only reporting what I read in the Guardian:surby said:
Exploited ? An electrician will cost me £115 tomorrow.
' Dumitru Popescu, a 41-year old Romanian, is one of the thousands of migrant workers who make up half the labour force in London’s construction industry.
He had just finished a trial shift, working from 7.30am until 5.30pm without a break, demolishing a block of flats with hand tools because machine digging was prohibited. Compared with his previous job, this was good work and he wanted to keep it, so he was trying to calculate what he needed to pay the two Romanians who controlled employment on this site.
He said that giving a cut of your wages each week to supervisors as protection money was how the system worked. Newcomers were given the most back-breaking jobs; by paying his fellow Romanian overseers the right amount he would gradually move up the pecking order and stay safe on the same site. But how much that amount should be was not clear. He thought probably £50 a week but it was an anxious decision. Pay too little and you would be moved on and back to the bottom of the pile; too much and you would be subsidising them to stand around while you sweated, he explained.
Popescu (not his real name) has a contract with a large, high-profile recruitment agency which supplies thousands of workers for sites around Greater London. On paper, arrangements look fine and much better than queueing by the road in the places where contractors pick up day labour. He is paid £9.15 per hour – above the minimum wage – with deductions for tax and national insurance, but he said he did not really understand the deductions and thought they were too high, even before the protection money.
His first job on arrival in the UK had been as a casual worker in leading hotels where the hours were completely unpredictable, varying from 12 hours one day to four hours the next with no notice. He moved to construction, where the first company he worked for cheated him out of his pay so he cut his losses and moved on. He was taken on as a casual to work on a flat renovation but was never paid for most of his work, the owner claiming he had run into financial difficulties. With the agency he thinks he will be able to work seven days a week averaging 10 hours a day and so make ends meet. '
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/08/slaves-working-in-uk-construction-and-car-washes-report-finds0 -
Poland must have qualified from a very weak group.
They're a very dreary team with a very dodgy defence.0 -
Romania, Denmark, Montenegro and a couple of other minnowsanother_richard said:Poland must have qualified from a very weak group.
They're a very dreary team with a very dodgy defence.0 -
Armenia, KazakhstanPulpstar said:
Romania, Denmark, Montenegro and a couple of other minnowsanother_richard said:Poland must have qualified from a very weak group.
They're a very dreary team with a very dodgy defence.0 -
And played only one friendly since Euro 2016 to rise to fifth in the FIFA rankings!Pulpstar said:
Armenia, KazakhstanPulpstar said:
Romania, Denmark, Montenegro and a couple of other minnowsanother_richard said:Poland must have qualified from a very weak group.
They're a very dreary team with a very dodgy defence.0 -
Compared to France and Netherlands being in one group and Spain and Italy being in another.Pulpstar said:
Romania, Denmark, Montenegro and a couple of other minnowsanother_richard said:Poland must have qualified from a very weak group.
They're a very dreary team with a very dodgy defence.0 -
Yep. Without boring all the non-programmers on here, it was a fascinating rabbit hole to fall down. The deeper I got, the more interesting it was, the less useful it would be to the majority of people, and the more complex the resultant code and the interface would be. Testing would also have been a bastard.Sandpit said:
Heck, even MS and Apple got their leap year code wrong in the past, and that's one of the simplest parts of current date/time code.0 -
The builders were probably employed by one of the remain voting well off white middle class liberals who attended yesterday's second referendum march. Yes they have loved all that cheap labour over the years courtesy of EU freedom of movement.another_richard said:
Only reporting what I read in the Guardian:surby said:
Exploited ? An electrician will cost me £115 tomorrow.
' Dumitru Popescu, a 41-year old Romanian, is one of the thousands of migrant workers who make up half the labour force in London’s construction industry.
He had just finished a trial shift, working from 7.30am until 5.30pm without a break, demolishing a block of flats with hand tools because machine digging was prohibited. Compared with his previous job, this was good work and he wanted to keep it, so he was trying to calculate what he needed to pay the two Romanians who controlled employment on this site.
He said that giving a cut of your wages each week to supervisors as protection money was how the system worked. Newcomers were given the most back-breaking jobs; by paying his fellow Romanian overseers the right amount he would gradually move up the pecking order and stay safe on the same site. But how much that amount should be was not clear. He thought probably £50 a week but it was an anxious decision. Pay too little and you would be moved on and back to the bottom of the pile; too much and you would be subsidising them to stand around while you sweated, he explained.
Popescu (not his real name) has a contract with a large, high-profile recruitment agency which supplies thousands of workers for sites around Greater London. On paper, arrangements look fine and much better than queueing by the road in the places where contractors pick up day labour. He is paid £9.15 per hour – above the minimum wage – with deductions for tax and national insurance, but he said he did not really understand the deductions and thought they were too high, even before the protection money.
His first job on arrival in the UK had been as a casual worker in leading hotels where the hours were completely unpredictable, varying from 12 hours one day to four hours the next with no notice. He moved to construction, where the first company he worked for cheated him out of his pay so he cut his losses and moved on. He was taken on as a casual to work on a flat renovation but was never paid for most of his work, the owner claiming he had run into financial difficulties. With the agency he thinks he will be able to work seven days a week averaging 10 hours a day and so make ends meet. '
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/08/slaves-working-in-uk-construction-and-car-washes-report-finds
I am sure all this cash in hand no questions asked no VAT no Ni type of work makes it into the ONS official statistics!0
This discussion has been closed.