Life tip - don't go to Sicily in the middle of a heatwave. It's 34 degrees today and that's the coolest it has been so far.
You lucky thing - I envy you. Chucking it down here.
Don't it's absolutely fucking terrible. Life sappingly hot. We drove to the beach near Siracusa today, it's the only thing to do to stay cool other than staying in the hotel room where there is AC.
Sicily is on my travel list - I`ve never been - it`s such a large island, any tips on which area to aim for? We like: authentic, not too commercialised, beautiful but not flash, calm seas, villages and local restaurants.
The last criterion was the one I was worried about as we have not retained the scripts. Just wanting the marks and not the papers makes it a lot more likely that schools will be able to do this.
The one part that may be a problem is the way the marks are translated into grades: I would think many schools to make an adjustment to allow for the expected improvement between the mock and the real thing.
One thing I’m hoping this will do is make it much easier to convince future Y11 students to take their mocks seriously...
My daughter`s schools just gave her grades - not marks. We have a Mock Exam certificate, issued back in January. I didn`t know about the "marks translated into grades" thing that you mention. That is concerning - as on second reading it does say marks not grades.
Edit: but then again - higher up it says "mock grade".
The school should have a record of what her mark actually was even if they didn’t tell her.
And if they don`t?
How likely do you think it is that a CAG will be lower than a mock grade?
Williamson will get some fire over this as this is not what he promised. He never mentioned that pupil can only appeal for their mock result if the CAG is at least equal to the mock. This doesn`t align with his triple-lock promise.
Life tip - don't go to Sicily in the middle of a heatwave. It's 34 degrees today and that's the coolest it has been so far.
Don’t go to Sicily in the summer!
The only time I went was in April several years ago which was plenty warm enough for me. We were all in shorts and tee-shirts while the locals were wrapped up in long coats and sweater.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
What, for the bananas?!
Bit cloudier over here in the east - we had a high haar in the morning. But sun has broken through since lunchtime.
Do the independents do a good job? Are they a cohesive group with a plan or "proper" independents. I've never lived in a place where independents have done well, I like the idea in principle but no idea how effective it would be in reality.
It depends on the Independent Group. Though for Town Councils remember that TCs have virtually no powers and tend to do the old Red Phone Box, 2 sets of swings and a local loo, and that's about it.
I agree, it depends - it only really works if they got together before the election and agreed what they wanted to do. Note that the unitary council drive being pushed by the government also envisages as yet unspecified empowerment of parish councils to compensate for the loss of local contact by the anolition of district councils. Some parish councillors believe that they will acquire the planning powers now held by district councils - which will work OK in some cases, but not others (in many places the parish council either doesn't exist or is a strictly amateur affair).
In my patch, Labour is in coalition at District level with independents (and LibDems and Greens). They are a diverse group, ranging from former Conservatives and one or two Kippers to a former left-wing trade unionist, but they are genuniely mainly interested in the town of Farnham. Farnham is blighted by what many see as a white elephant project, a half-built shopping centre with few actual shops signed up, and the independents tend to be anti-Tory as it was a Tory project.
The coalition works well because we all get on personally, and to be fair the local Tories are amicable too and we've all been working together to get the area through the Covid crisis. My view is that party politics is superfluous 90% of the time at district/parish level - good councillors do good stuff, and trying to guess who will be good by party label is an unrewarding endeavour.
I know a guy who works as an astrologer. He has taken account of Trump & Biden's time, date and place of birth details. He gives Trump a 51% chance of winning on November 3rd.
How do you 'work' as an astrologer? Who pays someone for that - the Met Office?
My uncle did it for many years - lots of clients paid him for his services - though he's now not well enough to pursue it. FWIW he's perfectly sincere - a very religious man, he believes that the position of the stars indicate the wishes of the Almighty.
You'd think the Almighty might make her intentions a little easier for the rest of us to figure!
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Trump was the perfect candidate for the twatter era. Or turn that around and say the twatter era was perfect for Trump.
Another aspect was that it was the failure of the GOP establishment which led to Trump.
There was a decade ago on PB an American GOP supporter called StarsAndStripes.
He was scornful of the idea that Trump could get nominated by the GOP and that if he did would suffer enormous defeat.
Yes, but there are other factors that make up Trump. He is best seen as the logical culmination of several trends that go back decades in western democracies, and America in particular:
- the devaluation of experience at the top of government, i.e. denying that you benefit from expertise - identity politics and its associated fostering of grievance - the dumbing down of debate through the shortening of attention spans through first TV, then social media - the toleration of rampant back-scratching and corruption - the relentless focus on personalities and not issues.
If you take those five trends together, you have President Trump.
And, for the record, we're on the same road on many of those trends over here. Hence that moron Corbyn.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
It was you blaming the EU
I only posted the Irish Times article
The blind worship of the EU by some is breathtaking
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Life tip - don't go to Sicily in the middle of a heatwave. It's 34 degrees today and that's the coolest it has been so far.
You lucky thing - I envy you. Chucking it down here.
Don't it's absolutely fucking terrible. Life sappingly hot. We drove to the beach near Siracusa today, it's the only thing to do to stay cool other than staying in the hotel room where there is AC.
Sicily is on my travel list - I`ve never been - it`s such a large island, any tips on which area to aim for? We like: authentic, not too commercialised, beautiful but not flash, calm seas, villages and local restaurants.
Catania, can't recommend it enough. Not really touristy at all, though I'm sure the current climate has something to do with that. I'd recommend knowing a fair amount of Italian though, lots of people don't speak English at all so unless you're ok with pointing and speaking loudly/slowly to get by its a but more difficult than other places I've been to in Italy.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
It's Court has
No, it hasn't. reread the thing. The Irish agency in question has messed up and doesn't need so many trees so the growers can't sell them to the agency. NOWHERE does it say the EU, court, lavatory attendants in Berlaymont, or any other part of it, instructed the destruction. Indeed, some of tyhe trees were sold to another customer.
Do the independents do a good job? Are they a cohesive group with a plan or "proper" independents. I've never lived in a place where independents have done well, I like the idea in principle but no idea how effective it would be in reality.
It depends on the Independent Group. Though for Town Councils remember that TCs have virtually no powers and tend to do the old Red Phone Box, 2 sets of swings and a local loo, and that's about it.
I agree, it depends - it only really works if they got together before the election and agreed what they wanted to do. Note that the unitary council drive being pushed by the government also envisages as yet unspecified empowerment of parish councils to compensate for the loss of local contact by the anolition of district councils. Some parish councillors believe that they will acquire the planning powers now held by district councils - which will work OK in some cases, but not others (in many places the parish council either doesn't exist or is a strictly amateur affair).
In my patch, Labour is in coalition at District level with independents (and LibDems and Greens). They are a diverse group, ranging from former Conservatives and one or two Kippers to a former left-wing trade unionist, but they are genuniely mainly interested in the town of Farnham. Farnham is blighted by what many see as a white elephant project, a half-built shopping centre with few actual shops signed up, and the independents tend to be anti-Tory as it was a Tory project.
The coalition works well because we all get on personally, and to be fair the local Tories are amicable too and we've all been working together to get the area through the Covid crisis. My view is that party politics is superfluous 90% of the time at district/parish level - good councillors do good stuff, and trying to guess who will be good by party label is an unrewarding endeavour.
The thing I like about the Ashfield Independents is that they aren't beholden to anyone else except us.
One heck of a punchup coming if they try and unitary-ise Nottinghamshire.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Life tip - don't go to Sicily in the middle of a heatwave. It's 34 degrees today and that's the coolest it has been so far.
You lucky thing - I envy you. Chucking it down here.
Don't it's absolutely fucking terrible. Life sappingly hot. We drove to the beach near Siracusa today, it's the only thing to do to stay cool other than staying in the hotel room where there is AC.
Sicily is on my travel list - I`ve never been - it`s such a large island, any tips on which area to aim for? We like: authentic, not too commercialised, beautiful but not flash, calm seas, villages and local restaurants.
Catania, can't recommend it enough. Not really touristy at all, though I'm sure the current climate has something to do with that. I'd recommend knowing a fair amount of Italian though, lots of people don't speak English at all so unless you're ok with pointing and speaking loudly/slowly to get by its a but more difficult than other places I've been to in Italy.
Yes, Catania is quite a place. A great trip across from there to Kefalonia one year.
Don't know if anyone has seen this but the whole video of the George Floyd death has been released. I believe this isn't the whole video but it's still useful context nonetheless.
The overwhelming impression is of stunning incompetence.
Many US police forces have an IQ (or equivalent) test as part of the application. If you get too high a score you are rejected.
Lol! Illuminating. I remember being told that in France you were unlikely to be allowed into the police if you were too smart. Didn't know it applied in the US too.
As a student working on a gas station in San Francisco many years ago I remember becoming acquainted with a number of the local cops. They were far from dumb, but they did tend to regard themselves as 'hired guns'.
That same summer I drove across the States and was stopped one night by a couple of cops in a small town in Nebraska. I've met more intelligent cows.
More recently I've been pulled over in NY State a couple of times. The word arrogance springs to mind rather than stupidity. Guess i t depends where you are.
I think another problem is the huge number of different police forces. In the UK we have 48; in the US (with admittedly five times the population) they have just under 18 thousand. As there are about 800,000 police officers, this means the mean police force has fewer than 50 officers.
Didn't know that. Again it helps to understand how dreadful incidents like the Floyd killing happen.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
It's Court has
No, it hasn't. reread the thing. The Irish agency in question has messed up and doesn't need so many trees so the growers can't sell them to the agency. NOWHERE does it say the EU, court, lavatory attendants in Berlaymont, or any other part of it, instructed the destruction. Indeed, some of tyhe trees were sold to another customer.
The article states that Mr Ryan said the critical factor that has given the business a heart attack was a European Court of Justice case in recent years that found environment assessment, partly the forest licensing process, were not sufficiently rigorous
Reading the Irish Times article, it seems these saplings are surplus because the Irish department of Forestry has been too slow to approve areas to re forest, in turn due to lack of adequate environmental assessment.
It does seem reasonable to me that environmental impacts of reafforestation are adequately assessed before mass plantings.
Sorry if all this has been said before about postal voting: I would dearly love Trump to lose and I almost never support what he says; but despite that there is a problem with trust in postal voting. Lots of people support it because it is convenient and sensible - and they are people who would not dream of subverting the process. But not everyone is as nice as the typical voter.
How is it possible to support a system where if you turn up at the polling booth there is the presence of officials to ensure that each vote is secret and free from influence or coercion, and then allow as part of the same system people to vote in a way that is completely unregulated and could be subject to influence, control or coercion?
The principle which applies here is that if a thing can happen it will happen. It erodes trust and slightly subverts the democratic process.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
It's Court has
No, it hasn't. reread the thing. The Irish agency in question has messed up and doesn't need so many trees so the growers can't sell them to the agency. NOWHERE does it say the EU, court, lavatory attendants in Berlaymont, or any other part of it, instructed the destruction. Indeed, some of tyhe trees were sold to another customer.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
A quick Google finds our own governments environmental assessment guidance. It all sounds pretty reasonable to me, and seems to be in line with EU regulations. Which bit of it do you think is surplus to requirements? The need to understand the human impacts? The fire risks? The preservation of cultural sites and protected species?
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
Is it the case that Scotland used to be heavily forested? And thus are the bare hills of (say) Glen Coe a human thing? (Anything to stop them building a McDonalds's)
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
I agree, but you can plant them in the wrong places, which is what this is about...
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
I agree, but you can plant them in the wrong places, which is what this is about...
For example, they must never be planted anywhere near an EU official, in case the intellectual comparison is to the tree’s advantage.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
A quick Google finds our own governments environmental assessment guidance. It all sounds pretty reasonable to me, and seems to be in line with EU regulations. Which bit of it do you think is surplus to requirements? The need to understand the human impacts? The fire risks? The preservation of cultural sites and protected species?
But why does the EU have to get involved? How does it help make sure that trade between the different members is on a level playing field? This sort of thing, regulatory overreach, is one of the reasons I seriously considered voting leave.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
you can if no-one wants to buy them. Saying that plenty of Scotland could do with reforesting but it is kept bare so a handful of toffs can shoot grouse.
It's good to see Adonis moving on from his euromadness albeit to tell Labour a truth they will not listen to.
I think Starmer is listening. Labour can only win a GE if it gets people who are ideologically conservative to vote for it. He is going to be muted on some subjects (e.g. criticising Brexit) and will take every opportunity to create the impression that the LP is patriotic. Basically, trying to repair the damage that Corbyn and his acolytes did.
Reagan wasn't just an actor. He had a complex and surprisingly intellectual background - he wrote many of his own speeches over the years. The acting was just his career before he moved into politics full time. Where he became a popular and successful Governor of California for 2 terms.
As opposed to Trump. Who after a lifetime of staggering from one shitty business deal to another....
Reagan's Evil Empire speech, combined with Soviet paranoia, damn nearly caused World War 3.
Telling the truth does that sometimes.
Thank God for Gordievsky.
"Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Reagan in Berlin, 1987.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Slowly, inefficiently and impermanently. And I like shooting grouse.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
You only see nature in instrumental terms? What of intrinsic value? Insect life, amphibians, birds, lower canopy botany?
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Slowly, inefficiently and impermanently. And I like shooting grouse.
far better to shoot the arseholes that own the grouse moors
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
I quite like gloomy and impenetrable woods. I like grouse moors too. Neither of these places are biologically rich (like a rain-forest) but they are biologically strong.
I'll happily go with 'unrewarding' if this is what it looks like.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Every month our solar panels report states how the equivalent is offset with trees.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Slowly, inefficiently and impermanently. And I like shooting grouse.
far better to shoot the arseholes that own the grouse moors
I would not express it that way but I agree 100% with the sentiment
Has anyone mentioned his diplomatic triumph of the Israel-UAE deal ?
I'm curious as to whether any PBers are big enough to admit Trump has done well in this case.
I did raise this in the context of what is generally a relatively favourable (and unquestionably quite benign) foreign policy record. To liberally paraphrase, the Brain Trust here conclude that only the “gullible” see this deal as good news and it’s actually all about setting up an anti Shia alliance to start world war 3 in Trump’s second term. Or something.
I hope Trump loses because I don’t like his undermining of democratic principles and personal conduct, which sets an appalling example to kids worldwide. But I don’t live in the US so am overall fairly ambivalent to the result if he delivers a second term roughly in keeping with his first with respect to China policy and the economy.
The very best thing about Trump losing now is it reduces the chances of an AOC presidency down the line.
I would seriously question the idea that Trump's foreign policy has been "quite benign". So definitely not "unquestionably". Even without global overheating there is a lot to criticise in foreign policy terms.
When you take his pro catastrophic global overheating policies into account, his foreign policy is unquestionably by far the worst of any US president ever. There isn't going to be any kind of peaceful world if we carry on burning fossil fuels like Trump wants.
Solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels without having to be subsided in many parts of the world and the article I linked to above suggests that it’s going to get substantially (about a third) better In the next few years. Wind generated power is on a similar track. This means that coal is rapidly turning into an expensive as well as dirty option which is the point where all the money grubbing capitalists abandon it without having to be told to.
Not all of them - those that own coal plants and mines will be lobbying hard for taxes and regulation on renewables so that they can slow down the transition as much as possible, and make as much money as possible in the interim.
This process has already been seen in the US and Australia, with attempts to charge people with solar panels a tax to "support the electricity grid" - aka subsidise coal.
Leaving it to the industrialists is one of the most stupid ideas I've seen on here. Leaving it to the industrialists has got us to the terrible situation we are in today, 30 years after the science of global warming was clear and almost no progress made since.
“Leaving it to the politicians is one of the most stupid ideas I’ve seen here. Leaving it to the politicians has got has got us to the terrible situation we are in today, 30 years after the science of global warming was clear and almost no progress made since.”
Until that is the industrialists drove down the cost of wind and solar so that it’s marginal cost is below coal almost everywhere and pushed electric vehicles total cost of ownership below that if diesel and petrol.
I suggest next month you watch the Tesla Battery Investor presentation. It’s industrialists that are finally changing the world for the better, while politicians of blue, red and even green stripes the world over have achieved barely a jot.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Every month our solar panels report states how the equivalent is offset with trees.
Last month is was the equivalent of 7 trees
Don't listen to them! Those bastards are power hungry, just looking for their place in the sun.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
A quick Google finds our own governments environmental assessment guidance. It all sounds pretty reasonable to me, and seems to be in line with EU regulations. Which bit of it do you think is surplus to requirements? The need to understand the human impacts? The fire risks? The preservation of cultural sites and protected species?
But why does the EU have to get involved? How does it help make sure that trade between the different members is on a level playing field? This sort of thing, regulatory overreach, is one of the reasons I seriously considered voting leave.
The European Court ruled that an adequate environmental impact assessment was needed. Seems quite reasonable to me. It is not EU regs per se, just a requirement to assess impacts.
For example plantings near powerlines, railway lines, along some roads, on neolithic sites, on SSI's etc might be bad places to plant.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
A quick Google finds our own governments environmental assessment guidance. It all sounds pretty reasonable to me, and seems to be in line with EU regulations. Which bit of it do you think is surplus to requirements? The need to understand the human impacts? The fire risks? The preservation of cultural sites and protected species?
But why does the EU have to get involved? How does it help make sure that trade between the different members is on a level playing field? This sort of thing, regulatory overreach, is one of the reasons I seriously considered voting leave.
The European Court ruled that an adequate environmental impact assessment was needed. Seems quite reasonable to me. It is not EU regs per se, just a requirement to assess impacts.
For example plantings near powerlines, railway lines, along some roads, on neolithic sites, on SSI's etc might be bad places to plant.
But that should be the Country's choice, not some EU quango
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Slowly, inefficiently and impermanently. And I like shooting grouse.
far better to shoot the arseholes that own the grouse moors
I'm afraid the arseholes may be getting into owning any new woodland as well.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
A quick Google finds our own governments environmental assessment guidance. It all sounds pretty reasonable to me, and seems to be in line with EU regulations. Which bit of it do you think is surplus to requirements? The need to understand the human impacts? The fire risks? The preservation of cultural sites and protected species?
But why does the EU have to get involved? How does it help make sure that trade between the different members is on a level playing field? This sort of thing, regulatory overreach, is one of the reasons I seriously considered voting leave.
The European Court ruled that an adequate environmental impact assessment was needed. Seems quite reasonable to me. It is not EU regs per se, just a requirement to assess impacts.
For example plantings near powerlines, railway lines, along some roads, on neolithic sites, on SSI's etc might be bad places to plant.
But that should be the Country's choice, not some EU quango
It is. The European Court just requires them to assess environmental impacts.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
A quick Google finds our own governments environmental assessment guidance. It all sounds pretty reasonable to me, and seems to be in line with EU regulations. Which bit of it do you think is surplus to requirements? The need to understand the human impacts? The fire risks? The preservation of cultural sites and protected species?
But why does the EU have to get involved? How does it help make sure that trade between the different members is on a level playing field? This sort of thing, regulatory overreach, is one of the reasons I seriously considered voting leave.
The European Court ruled that an adequate environmental impact assessment was needed. Seems quite reasonable to me. It is not EU regs per se, just a requirement to assess impacts.
For example plantings near powerlines, railway lines, along some roads, on neolithic sites, on SSI's etc might be bad places to plant.
But that should be the Country's choice, not some EU quango
It is. The European Court just requires them to assess environmental impacts.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Slowly, inefficiently and impermanently. And I like shooting grouse.
far better to shoot the arseholes that own the grouse moors
I would not express it that way but I agree 100% with the sentiment
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
A quick Google finds our own governments environmental assessment guidance. It all sounds pretty reasonable to me, and seems to be in line with EU regulations. Which bit of it do you think is surplus to requirements? The need to understand the human impacts? The fire risks? The preservation of cultural sites and protected species?
But why does the EU have to get involved? How does it help make sure that trade between the different members is on a level playing field? This sort of thing, regulatory overreach, is one of the reasons I seriously considered voting leave.
The European Court ruled that an adequate environmental impact assessment was needed. Seems quite reasonable to me. It is not EU regs per se, just a requirement to assess impacts.
For example plantings near powerlines, railway lines, along some roads, on neolithic sites, on SSI's etc might be bad places to plant.
But that should be the Country's choice, not some EU quango
It is. The European Court just requires them to assess environmental impacts.
But why should they be involved
To be fair, BigG, EU has done some great things environmental-wise e.g. re-wilding initiatives.
Guido Fawkes is trash, does somebody have the story from a less biased and crap source please? Their website looks like a clone of 4Chan
You may not like Guido but maybe best to check the message first before shooting the messenger
And by the way the source was the Irish Times
Thanks, I will look there.
You can't go to the Guido site and think this is the hallmark of quality though, surely. It looks like it was designed by a toddler and violates all kinds of usability guidelines. From a web UX POV it drives me insane.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Slowly, inefficiently and impermanently. And I like shooting grouse.
far better to shoot the arseholes that own the grouse moors
I would not express it that way but I agree 100% with the sentiment
What, killing people?
Of course not but I have no time at all for Scots landowners
'“So, arguably, the really difficult strategic difficulty that faces the leader of the Scottish Conservative party and faces Boris Johnson is that they badly need the Scottish Labour party to revive between now and next May.
“Because it may well be that on that the chances of denying the SNP an overall majority rests.”
Curtice said that much of the SNP’s success in the December 2019 general election came from winning back votes that it had lost to Labour in 2017.
He added that between a third and 40 per cent of the Labour vote supports independence.
“That’s where the action probably is,” he said.'''
Strokes chin. I wonder what cunning plan Lab had to win back between a third and 40 per cent of the Labour vote that supports independence?
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Slowly, inefficiently and impermanently. And I like shooting grouse.
far better to shoot the arseholes that own the grouse moors
I would not express it that way but I agree 100% with the sentiment
What, killing people?
Of course not but I have no time at all for Scots landowners
As someone who owns several square ft of Scotland, I find that unfair!
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
A quick Google finds our own governments environmental assessment guidance. It all sounds pretty reasonable to me, and seems to be in line with EU regulations. Which bit of it do you think is surplus to requirements? The need to understand the human impacts? The fire risks? The preservation of cultural sites and protected species?
But why does the EU have to get involved? How does it help make sure that trade between the different members is on a level playing field? This sort of thing, regulatory overreach, is one of the reasons I seriously considered voting leave.
The European Court ruled that an adequate environmental impact assessment was needed. Seems quite reasonable to me. It is not EU regs per se, just a requirement to assess impacts.
For example plantings near powerlines, railway lines, along some roads, on neolithic sites, on SSI's etc might be bad places to plant.
I not arguing that an environmental impact assessment isn’t a good idea; my argument is that this is something that the Irish state should be perfectly capable of working out for itself. If the Irish Supreme Court had made this decision it would be sad that so many trees were due to be pulped, but unremarkable otherwise. It is the fact that the European Court got involved because this was a European standard rather than an Irish one that I have a problem with.
Is there a compelling reason why this is a European competence rather than a national one? If there is, then I will have to admit that you are right.
1. Don’t go in August. Far too hot. It can easily get over 40 degrees. And there are lots of crowds. 2. Palermo is well worth exploring. 3. Selinunte and Segesta are wonderful for their Greek temples, as is Agrigento. 4. Siracusa is a must especially if you can get tickets to the Greek theatre there. I saw a superb production of Antigone there. 5. Sciacca is lovely and Ragusa. 6. Taormina is the Amalfi of Sicily. 7. Try and visit one of the Aeolian Islands. 8. You must eat genuine Sicilian arancini di riso. Malvasia sweet wine is also delicious.
Guido Fawkes is trash, does somebody have the story from a less biased and crap source please? Their website looks like a clone of 4Chan
You may not like Guido but maybe best to check the message first before shooting the messenger
And by the way the source was the Irish Times
Thanks, I will look there.
You can't go to the Guido site and think this is the hallmark of quality though, surely. It looks like it was designed by a toddler and violates all kinds of usability guidelines. From a web UX POV it drives me insane.
I source lots of stories across twitter, the guardian, sky, BBC, and occasionally Guido
Guido is one step away from one of those dodgy sites you used to use in the mid 2000s to illegally download films. Hope they can hire a decent UX team soon, not pleasurable to use whatsoever.
Guido is one step away from one of those dodgy sites you used to use in the mid 2000s to illegally download films. Hope they can hire a decent UX team soon, not pleasurable to use whatsoever.
No notable pro government rallies Too many people to shoot now on the streets
President Big Hat is either: continuing to stall before a crackdown, which will need the army (or a 3rd party) and an unprecedented effort or hoping to release some steam in the hope that things will lose a lot of their momentum or he is done and someone somewhere is trying to work out what happens next
At one point a couple of days ago the regime blamed the British amongst a couple of others for stirring all this trouble. How exactly the F.C.O managed this is unclear. Perhaps the British Council used the cover of a cultural event, such as Morris Dancing in Minsk, to infiltrate provocateurs into the country at the start of the year.
Should a book ever be written about MI6's alleged involvement in the Belarus protests and contextualising it as part of UK intelligence's century old association with White Russians, I have dibs on the title 'Morris Dancing in Minsk'.
Guido Fawkes is trash, does somebody have the story from a less biased and crap source please? Their website looks like a clone of 4Chan
You may not like Guido but maybe best to check the message first before shooting the messenger
And by the way the source was the Irish Times
Thanks, I will look there.
You can't go to the Guido site and think this is the hallmark of quality though, surely. It looks like it was designed by a toddler and violates all kinds of usability guidelines. From a web UX POV it drives me insane.
I source lots of stories across twitter, the guardian, sky, BBC, and occasionally Guido
I always look to the source not the messenger
I was commenting on the poor usability and design of their site.
Guido is one step away from one of those dodgy sites you used to use in the mid 2000s to illegally download films. Hope they can hire a decent UX team soon, not pleasurable to use whatsoever.
I agree it's horrid and I don't read it as a habit, but we post on a website that a well-meaning person hacked and changed the name to 'Palatialbetting' yesterday and it doesn't appear to have been changed back, so I don't think we can talk.
Guido is one step away from one of those dodgy sites you used to use in the mid 2000s to illegally download films. Hope they can hire a decent UX team soon, not pleasurable to use whatsoever.
I have no idea what you are alleging here
I am from a purely analytical POV, providing some insight into their site. I work in software engineering and I work in my current role, in web development.
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
As Carnyx said it is the Irish growers etc that have grown far too many and the EU don't need them , usual made up bollox of blaming the EU when it is nothing to do with them
You can never grow too many trees
That is nonsense, the interior of the average wood is gloomy, impenetrable and biologically impoverished. If you don't want timber to build with or burn, nor somewhere to harbour animals to hunt, they are about the most unrewarding use of land imaginable.
apart from sooking up CO2 perhaps? Assume also you know nothing of grouse moors.
Slowly, inefficiently and impermanently. And I like shooting grouse.
far better to shoot the arseholes that own the grouse moors
I would not express it that way but I agree 100% with the sentiment
What, killing people?
Of course not but I have no time at all for Scots landowners
As someone who owns several square ft of Scotland, I find that unfair!
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
A quick Google finds our own governments environmental assessment guidance. It all sounds pretty reasonable to me, and seems to be in line with EU regulations. Which bit of it do you think is surplus to requirements? The need to understand the human impacts? The fire risks? The preservation of cultural sites and protected species?
But why does the EU have to get involved? How does it help make sure that trade between the different members is on a level playing field? This sort of thing, regulatory overreach, is one of the reasons I seriously considered voting leave.
The European Court ruled that an adequate environmental impact assessment was needed. Seems quite reasonable to me. It is not EU regs per se, just a requirement to assess impacts.
For example plantings near powerlines, railway lines, along some roads, on neolithic sites, on SSI's etc might be bad places to plant.
I not arguing that an environmental impact assessment isn’t a good idea; my argument is that this is something that the Irish state should be perfectly capable of working out for itself. If the Irish Supreme Court had made this decision it would be sad that so many trees were due to be pulped, but unremarkable otherwise. It is the fact that the European Court got involved because this was a European standard rather than an Irish one that I have a problem with.
Is there a compelling reason why this is a European competence rather than a national one? If there is, then I will have to admit that you are right.
The Windfarm was built without an environmental impact, caused a massive landslide, hence the requirement to do so in the future. There also seems to be an issue of issuing retrospective approvals.
Guido is one step away from one of those dodgy sites you used to use in the mid 2000s to illegally download films. Hope they can hire a decent UX team soon, not pleasurable to use whatsoever.
I agree it's horrid and I don't read it as a habit, but we post on a website that a well-meaning person hacked and changed the name to 'Palatialbetting' yesterday and it doesn't appear to have been changed back, so I don't think we can talk.
No true, that seems a very serious vulnerability. Has anyone published how they were able to change it, was it SQL injection?
As for the general site, I am sorry to say the main site here is very poorly designed too and does not fit into current web standards at all.
Vanilla is at least relatively modern, so I use that to look at the messages.
Of course I don't agree with Guido's ideological slant either but they are not helped by their site.
The Times is pretty good on the UI front, even the Telegraph seems fine. Their annoying use of paywalls is a constant frustration but I can see they need to make money.
1. Don’t go in August. Far too hot. It can easily get over 40 degrees. And there are lots of crowds. 2. Palermo is well worth exploring. 3. Selinunte and Segesta are wonderful for their Greek temples, as is Agrigento. 4. Siracusa is a must especially if you can get tickets to the Greek theatre there. I saw a superb production of Antigone there. 5. Sciacca is lovely and Ragusa. 6. Taormina is the Amalfi of Sicily. 7. Try and visit one of the Aeolian Islands. 8. You must eat genuine Sicilian arancini di riso. Malvasia sweet wine is also delicious.
I remember first having arancini di riso in Sicily, and I agree wholeheartedly!
Not the EU but administrative incompetence within Ireland.
Always try to pin it on the EU, they will be stuffed in UK next year when they cannot blame everything on the EU. They will try to blame Labour instead.
It is the Irish blaming the EU
Really? It reads to me as if an organization in Ireland failed to follow widely known EU-wide administrative procedures and got taken to the ECJ. In no way did the EU specifically mandate the destruction of the saplings.
Surely the problem is that the EU has some minutia of regulation about planting trees. Why is it getting involved in this at all? Planting more trees and reforestation is a hugely important goal, it's one of the tools we have against climate change so why are he EU making it more difficult with regulations?
Well, to make sure they don't make tyhe environmentqal situation even worse?
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Again, why get involved at all? If a country is happy to pursue reforestation or growing a new tree nursery then that in itself is worthwhile, why is he EU making this process unnecessarily complicated with regulations. The national government will know what's best for it's country, it isn't going to approve some kind of invasive species or something that will cause devastation to other forests in the country. It's just another example of EU regulatory overreach and now 400,000 trees are not going to exist that would otherwise have done.
A quick Google finds our own governments environmental assessment guidance. It all sounds pretty reasonable to me, and seems to be in line with EU regulations. Which bit of it do you think is surplus to requirements? The need to understand the human impacts? The fire risks? The preservation of cultural sites and protected species?
But why does the EU have to get involved? How does it help make sure that trade between the different members is on a level playing field? This sort of thing, regulatory overreach, is one of the reasons I seriously considered voting leave.
The European Court ruled that an adequate environmental impact assessment was needed. Seems quite reasonable to me. It is not EU regs per se, just a requirement to assess impacts.
For example plantings near powerlines, railway lines, along some roads, on neolithic sites, on SSI's etc might be bad places to plant.
I not arguing that an environmental impact assessment isn’t a good idea; my argument is that this is something that the Irish state should be perfectly capable of working out for itself. If the Irish Supreme Court had made this decision it would be sad that so many trees were due to be pulped, but unremarkable otherwise. It is the fact that the European Court got involved because this was a European standard rather than an Irish one that I have a problem with.
Is there a compelling reason why this is a European competence rather than a national one? If there is, then I will have to admit that you are right.
The Windfarm was built without an environmental impact, caused a massive landslide, hence the requirement to do so in the future. There also seems to be an issue of issuing retrospective approvals.
I am happy to accept that it is a European competence, my question is why is it a European competence.
Life tip - don't go to Sicily in the middle of a heatwave. It's 34 degrees today and that's the coolest it has been so far.
You lucky thing - I envy you. Chucking it down here.
Don't it's absolutely fucking terrible. Life sappingly hot. We drove to the beach near Siracusa today, it's the only thing to do to stay cool other than staying in the hotel room where there is AC.
Sicily is on my travel list - I`ve never been - it`s such a large island, any tips on which area to aim for? We like: authentic, not too commercialised, beautiful but not flash, calm seas, villages and local restaurants.
Taormina is where most first time visitors end up; a beautiful, but touristy, spot that fails most of your criteria.
Avoid Catania.
Siracusa is a great spot, both for itself and the striking inland towns (Noto, Ragusa) that are within reasonable reach. Or, for the more adventurous, stay inland and visit the coast.
Palermo is underrated and well worth a visit, and perfectly safe with a bit of common sense. Driving there is for the adventurous only: where locals regularly join the motorway by reversing at high speed up the ‘off’ sliproad, and full of no-priority four-way junctions in town where priority goes to the driver that doesn’t blink. Great fun if you enjoy that sort of thing.
Off the beaten track, but the island of Lipari is great (provided that you don’t dislike capers), as are a few of the villages just inland of the northern coast road.
Sicily is blessed with great spring and autumn weather, stunning food (especially from the sea), and the wines have a good reputation now that there is a better than evens chance that the contents of the bottle bear at least some relation to the writing on the label.
Guido is one step away from one of those dodgy sites you used to use in the mid 2000s to illegally download films. Hope they can hire a decent UX team soon, not pleasurable to use whatsoever.
I have no idea what you are alleging here
It looks dodgy, that was my point. I am sure it isn't actually dodgy but it's the kind of site I'd make sure I had my anti-virus turned on and was using HTTPS, put it that way.
Of course I don't agree with Guido's ideological slant either but they are not helped by their site.
The Times is pretty good on the UI front, even the Telegraph seems fine. Their annoying use of paywalls is a constant frustration but I can see they need to make money.
It's a blog, not a newspaper. I think it's supposed to be simple.
Of course I don't agree with Guido's ideological slant either but they are not helped by their site.
The Times is pretty good on the UI front, even the Telegraph seems fine. Their annoying use of paywalls is a constant frustration but I can see they need to make money.
It's a blog, not a newspaper. I think it's supposed to be simple.
Simple doesn't mean crap. They could at least follow basic UX guidance.
There are plenty of decent blogging platforms or blogs that are well designed.
This is an insult to anyone that runs a blog quite frankly.
Of course I don't agree with Guido's ideological slant either but they are not helped by their site.
The Times is pretty good on the UI front, even the Telegraph seems fine. Their annoying use of paywalls is a constant frustration but I can see they need to make money.
It's a blog, not a newspaper. I think it's supposed to be simple.
Simple doesn't mean crap. They could at least follow basic UX guidance.
There are plenty of decent blogging platforms or blogs that are well designed.
This is an insult to anyone that runs a blog quite frankly.
Isn't it the most popular blog in the UK? so I think they are doing just fine.
Comments
How likely do you think it is that a CAG will be lower than a mock grade?
Williamson will get some fire over this as this is not what he promised. He never mentioned that pupil can only appeal for their mock result if the CAG is at least equal to the mock. This doesn`t align with his triple-lock promise.
The only time I went was in April several years ago which was plenty warm enough for me. We were all in shorts and tee-shirts while the locals were wrapped up in long coats and sweater.
Bit cloudier over here in the east - we had a high haar in the morning. But sun has broken through since lunchtime.
In my patch, Labour is in coalition at District level with independents (and LibDems and Greens). They are a diverse group, ranging from former Conservatives and one or two Kippers to a former left-wing trade unionist, but they are genuniely mainly interested in the town of Farnham. Farnham is blighted by what many see as a white elephant project, a half-built shopping centre with few actual shops signed up, and the independents tend to be anti-Tory as it was a Tory project.
The coalition works well because we all get on personally, and to be fair the local Tories are amicable too and we've all been working together to get the area through the Covid crisis. My view is that party politics is superfluous 90% of the time at district/parish level - good councillors do good stuff, and trying to guess who will be good by party label is an unrewarding endeavour.
The blind worship of the EU by some is breathtaking
One heck of a punchup coming if they try and unitary-ise Nottinghamshire.
Off now to do my bit for the environment (saorting out charity shop stuff from the clutter). Have a nice weekend everyone.
Red tape creating eco vandalism
It does seem reasonable to me that environmental impacts of reafforestation are adequately assessed before mass plantings.
How is it possible to support a system where if you turn up at the polling booth there is the presence of officials to ensure that each vote is secret and free from influence or coercion, and then allow as part of the same system people to vote in a way that is completely unregulated and could be subject to influence, control or coercion?
The principle which applies here is that if a thing can happen it will happen. It erodes trust and slightly subverts the democratic process.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/706038/171024-EIA-Scoping-and-ES-Statement-Guidance-v.5.pdf
Edit: sorry, Good evening all.
This sort of thing, regulatory overreach, is one of the reasons I seriously considered voting leave.
https://es.pn/2PUNRNd
I'll happily go with 'unrewarding' if this is what it looks like.
Last month is was the equivalent of 7 trees
Until that is the industrialists drove down the cost of wind and solar so that it’s marginal cost is below coal almost everywhere and pushed electric vehicles total cost of ownership below that if diesel and petrol.
I suggest next month you watch the Tesla Battery Investor presentation. It’s industrialists that are finally changing the world for the better, while politicians of blue, red and even green stripes the world over have achieved barely a jot.
For example plantings near powerlines, railway lines, along some roads, on neolithic sites, on SSI's etc might be bad places to plant.
'Super-rich buying up Scotland’s forests'
https://tinyurl.com/yyk83brj
And by the way the source was the Irish Times
You can't go to the Guido site and think this is the hallmark of quality though, surely. It looks like it was designed by a toddler and violates all kinds of usability guidelines. From a web UX POV it drives me insane.
The Irish Times was the source.
https://tinyurl.com/y4rvnq2v
'“So, arguably, the really difficult strategic difficulty that faces the leader of the Scottish Conservative party and faces Boris Johnson is that they badly need the Scottish Labour party to revive between now and next May.
“Because it may well be that on that the chances of denying the SNP an overall majority rests.”
Curtice said that much of the SNP’s success in the December 2019 general election came from winning back votes that it had lost to Labour in 2017.
He added that between a third and 40 per cent of the Labour vote supports independence.
“That’s where the action probably is,” he said.'''
Strokes chin.
I wonder what cunning plan Lab had to win back between a third and 40 per cent of the Labour vote that supports independence?
Is there a compelling reason why this is a European competence rather than a national one? If there is, then I will have to admit that you are right.
1. Don’t go in August. Far too hot. It can easily get over 40 degrees. And there are lots of crowds.
2. Palermo is well worth exploring.
3. Selinunte and Segesta are wonderful for their Greek temples, as is Agrigento.
4. Siracusa is a must especially if you can get tickets to the Greek theatre there. I saw a superb production of Antigone there.
5. Sciacca is lovely and Ragusa.
6. Taormina is the Amalfi of Sicily.
7. Try and visit one of the Aeolian Islands.
8. You must eat genuine Sicilian arancini di riso. Malvasia sweet wine is also delicious.
I always look to the source not the messenger
No notable pro government rallies
Too many people to shoot now on the streets
President Big Hat is either:
continuing to stall before a crackdown, which will need the army (or a 3rd party) and an unprecedented effort
or
hoping to release some steam in the hope that things will lose a lot of their momentum
or
he is done and someone somewhere is trying to work out what happens next
At one point a couple of days ago the regime blamed the British amongst a couple of others for stirring all this trouble. How exactly the F.C.O managed this is unclear. Perhaps the British Council used the cover of a cultural event, such as Morris Dancing in Minsk, to infiltrate provocateurs into the country at the start of the year.
Should a book ever be written about MI6's alleged involvement in the Belarus protests and contextualising it as part of UK intelligence's century old association with White Russians, I have dibs on the title 'Morris Dancing in Minsk'.
To be fair, the Guardian is not good either.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ireland-fined-5m-euro-over-environmental-assessment-of-wind-farm-38684853.html
https://www.clientearth.org/court-of-justice-comes-down-hard-on-persistent-failures-to-assess-the-environmental-impacts-of-projects/
The Windfarm was built without an environmental impact, caused a massive landslide, hence the requirement to do so in the future. There also seems to be an issue of issuing retrospective approvals.
As for the general site, I am sorry to say the main site here is very poorly designed too and does not fit into current web standards at all.
Vanilla is at least relatively modern, so I use that to look at the messages.
Looking at the rate at which spending is changing can be helpful, but it is not nearly as significant as the actual amount of spending.
The Times is pretty good on the UI front, even the Telegraph seems fine. Their annoying use of paywalls is a constant frustration but I can see they need to make money.
Avoid Catania.
Siracusa is a great spot, both for itself and the striking inland towns (Noto, Ragusa) that are within reasonable reach. Or, for the more adventurous, stay inland and visit the coast.
Palermo is underrated and well worth a visit, and perfectly safe with a bit of common sense. Driving there is for the adventurous only: where locals regularly join the motorway by reversing at high speed up the ‘off’ sliproad, and full of no-priority four-way junctions in town where priority goes to the driver that doesn’t blink. Great fun if you enjoy that sort of thing.
Off the beaten track, but the island of Lipari is great (provided that you don’t dislike capers), as are a few of the villages just inland of the northern coast road.
Sicily is blessed with great spring and autumn weather, stunning food (especially from the sea), and the wines have a good reputation now that there is a better than evens chance that the contents of the bottle bear at least some relation to the writing on the label.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-53792016
Huh, interesting to see London has the highest Labour defectors due to Brexit.
There are plenty of decent blogging platforms or blogs that are well designed.
This is an insult to anyone that runs a blog quite frankly.
You know who also pushed for that position?
John McDonnell and Diane Abbott. How come they don't get named and shamed?
*political blog!