Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Vote Green, Go Blue? – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,252
    Taz said:

    Selebian said:

    Cookie said:

    City break in York with the family today and tomorrow. It is absolutely packed. I've never seen it so busy, not even when the races were on. Went out for tea at 6 - all the restaurants were fully booked. Ended up eating in a perfectly adequate fish and chip shop, which probably saved us about £40.
    Anyway, everyone up for having as good a time as possible. Almost no sign of masks.
    National rail museum tomorrow. Very excited...

    If you have time and inclination, the pub in the station next door (York TAP) has a very good range of beers :smile:
    It has a belting selection. Owned by the same group who have the equally excellent Newcastle Tap.

    So does the maltings just over the road.

    The House of Trembling Madness is also excellent.
    It is indeed. No chance of squeezing in upstairs on the weekend, I should think, but might be possible on a Monday...

    Still, the offie alone is worth visit
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459
    edited October 2021
    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.
  • On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    its a shit law that also takes the piss
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    It provided the Iranians with a convenient excuse plus additional leverage (personal embarrassment).

    But they would have found another excuse if he hadn’t said it
    My presumption was that she *was* teaching journalism and that admitting it was thought (incorrectly) to be likely to improve her position.
    The worst possible case for people to bring up.

    She’s an Iranian citizen, who committed offences in Iran and was arrested in Iran.

    There’s a huge misunderstanding as to the law on dual citizenship, deliberately so on the part of her British supporters - the UK government can do precisely nothing under international law, and the Iranians are going to enjoy rubbing their noses in it, no matter who is the British representative trying to negotiate on her behalf.
    Yes. Still fucking brilliant to give the game away because you are too lazy to read your briefing notes properly
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
  • I like (I think) that "likes" are tabulated on PB.

    Question - is there any tabulation (actual or possible) for number of times that a posters posts are "quoted" as per the system?

    Possibly a preferable portrait of a PBer's posting prowess, perhaps?

    Yeah, I see posts that have no likes but get about twenty replies.

    They're obviously more interesting posts than the repost of a funny tweet that gets twenty likes.

    But a deliberately offensive post can get a lot of responses without being interesting, and hopefully wouldn't get likes.
    Perhaps powers-that-be could provide buttons for range of responses, in addition to tabulating sheer # of quotes. Would be more useful than the "off topic" button which seems to get pushed mostly by mistake, certainly NOT every time someone strays off into the ozone somewhere - which is large part of the charm (if that's the word) of PB.
    A wide range of emoji options is a way to deal with the current like/off-topic choice.

    I think a count of replies would be at least as interesting as the current count of just likes.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    Yes it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her current predicament.

    She was already in prison and already being held hostage long before the PM spoke. The Iranians were already increasing her sentence before he spoke too.

    That's why he was asked about the situation. Because it had already happened. Unless the Iranians have a TARDIS her being in this predicament has not a scintilla of a relationship to what happened after she ended up in this predicament.

    But if you find it easier to blame the PM of the UK instead of the Iranians holding her hostage, then that's on you. 🤷‍♂️
    What is this "that's on you" shit? Is English your first language?
  • On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    its a shit law that also takes the piss
    Frankly, doubt if Boris really gives a toss.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392
    dixiedean said:
    I'll be voting No. As I hope most people will.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459
    edited October 2021
    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    The problem was, that the discharges were happening becuase of lack of treatment capacity, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to planning delays.

    The Lords Bill was an Opposition ambush, designed for the social media campaign at COP26.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392
    RobD said:

    NIMBYism on steroids more like.
    Good. Why should local residents be steamrollered by fat cat developers and their golfing buddies on the council?
  • RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    And many millions or even billions in UK pensions
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,152
    Taz said:

    Selebian said:

    Cookie said:

    City break in York with the family today and tomorrow. It is absolutely packed. I've never seen it so busy, not even when the races were on. Went out for tea at 6 - all the restaurants were fully booked. Ended up eating in a perfectly adequate fish and chip shop, which probably saved us about £40.
    Anyway, everyone up for having as good a time as possible. Almost no sign of masks.
    National rail museum tomorrow. Very excited...

    If you have time and inclination, the pub in the station next door (York TAP) has a very good range of beers :smile:
    It has a belting selection. Owned by the same group who have the equally excellent Newcastle Tap.

    So does the maltings just over the road.

    The House of Trembling Madness is also excellent.
    I've been to the House of Trembling Madness several times including recent and it is an absolutely top venue 👍
  • Sandpit said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    The problem was, that the discharges were happening becuase of lack of treatment capacity, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to planning delays.

    The Lords Bill was an Opposition ambush, designed for the social media campaign at COP26.
    Quite a clever one, it seems?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    Ah yeah, it's right there in the first clause (17ZA, 1). That seems like quite an onerous duty.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    RobD said:

    NIMBYism on steroids more like.
    Good. Why should local residents be steamrollered by fat cat developers and their golfing buddies on the council?
    Because ‘local residents’ are a bunch of selfish whoppers
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    And many millions or even billions in UK pensions
    Oh, that's ok then
  • Farooq said:

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    And many millions or even billions in UK pensions
    Oh, that's ok then
    It is if it is your UK pension
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459
    edited October 2021
    Sandpit said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    The problem was, that the discharges were happening becuase of lack of treatment capacity, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to planning delays.

    The Lords Bill was an Opposition ambush, designed for the social media campaign at COP26.
    That doesn't really answer my point. Do you think it should be legal for water companies to allow discharge of raw sewage? The answer's straightforward, I think. And while there may be practical issues, as you mention, that stop it being solved overnight, the principle of such practice being against the law makes sense. As for it being an Opposition ambush, I believe that it was supported by their lordships across the political spectrum.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    Yes it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her current predicament.

    She was already in prison and already being held hostage long before the PM spoke. The Iranians were already increasing her sentence before he spoke too.

    That's why he was asked about the situation. Because it had already happened. Unless the Iranians have a TARDIS her being in this predicament has not a scintilla of a relationship to what happened after she ended up in this predicament.

    But if you find it easier to blame the PM of the UK instead of the Iranians holding her hostage, then that's on you. 🤷‍♂️
    What is this "that's on you" shit? Is English your first language?
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats on you
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273

    Farooq said:

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    And many millions or even billions in UK pensions
    Oh, that's ok then
    It is if it is your UK pension
    Tbh Big_G if I thought my pension fund was invested in a company that pumped raw sewage into the sea I would be decidedly unhappy. It wouldn't be ok at all.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    And many millions or even billions in UK pensions
    Oh well that's all right then. Have you any idea of the fortunes made by the fat cats in the water industry over the last 30 years? They've lined their pockets well and truly.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited October 2021

    Farooq said:

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    And many millions or even billions in UK pensions
    Oh, that's ok then
    It is if it is your UK pension
    No, the fact that pension companies invest in a company doesn't pardon the behaviour of that company.
    I mean, if you think that you're literally saying people and companies should be able to get away with whatever behaviour they like as long as they pay.
    If Your Holiness is in the business of selling indulgences, I've got some theses to nail to the door of the church.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392

    RobD said:

    NIMBYism on steroids more like.
    Good. Why should local residents be steamrollered by fat cat developers and their golfing buddies on the council?
    Because ‘local residents’ are a bunch of selfish whoppers
    No. That's the developers who put profits ahead of the local communities that they seek to parasitise.

    Night all.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    It provided the Iranians with a convenient excuse plus additional leverage (personal embarrassment).

    But they would have found another excuse if he hadn’t said it
    My presumption was that she *was* teaching journalism and that admitting it was thought (incorrectly) to be likely to improve her position.
    The accusation was she was a spy, Boris say “no she wasn’t she was just teaching journalism”. You are probably right.

    But haters will hate
  • Sandpit said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    The problem was, that the discharges were happening becuase of lack of treatment capacity, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to planning delays.

    The Lords Bill was an Opposition ambush, designed for the social media campaign at COP26.
    That doesn't really answer my point. Do you think it should be legal for water companies to allow discharge of raw sewage? The answer's straightforward, I think. And while there may be practical issues, as you mention, that stop it being solved overnight, the principle of such practice being against the law makes sense. As for it being an Opposition ambush, I believe that it was supported by their lordship across the political spectrum.
    I agree largely with your comment though I am not familiar with the detail

    However attacking water company shareholders profits is unfair as pension funds will invest in them
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    2 isn’t quite right. They made the water companies responsible for any spillage by anyone AIUI
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    The problem was, that the discharges were happening becuase of lack of treatment capacity, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to planning delays.

    The Lords Bill was an Opposition ambush, designed for the social media campaign at COP26.
    That doesn't really answer my point. Do you think it should be legal for water companies to allow discharge of raw sewage? The answer's straightforward, I think. And while there may be practical issues, as you mention, that stop it being solved overnight, the principle of such practice being against the law makes sense. As for it being an Opposition ambush, I believe that it was supported by their lordship across the political spectrum.
    In certain circumstances, yes.

    It might not be preferable, but what is a water company to do, when there’s tens of thousands of new homes built in their service area with planning permission refused to expand their treatment facility?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    edited October 2021

    Farooq said:

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    And many millions or even billions in UK pensions
    Oh, that's ok then
    It is if it is your UK pension
    Tbh Big_G if I thought my pension fund was invested in a company that pumped raw sewage into the sea I would be decidedly unhappy. It wouldn't be ok at all.
    I can understand that reaction but water companies are generally a safe investment for UK pensions funds

    I cannot comment on the detail or politics of the vote as I am not over the intricacies

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    The problem was, that the discharges were happening becuase of lack of treatment capacity, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to planning delays.

    The Lords Bill was an Opposition ambush, designed for the social media campaign at COP26.
    That doesn't really answer my point. Do you think it should be legal for water companies to allow discharge of raw sewage? The answer's straightforward, I think. And while there may be practical issues, as you mention, that stop it being solved overnight, the principle of such practice being against the law makes sense. As for it being an Opposition ambush, I believe that it was supported by their lordship across the political spectrum.
    In certain circumstances, yes.

    It might not be preferable, but what is a water company to do, when there’s tens of thousands of new homes built in their service area with planning permission refused to expand their treatment facility?
    Have a vote of local residents on the sewage treatment facility?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited October 2021

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    “All reasonable” is a very high standard. It means they are not allowed to take cost into account. It also doesn’t specify its sewage discharged *by them*

    Requirement for substantial mandated capital expenditure that is not currently budgeted for


  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459
    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    The problem was, that the discharges were happening becuase of lack of treatment capacity, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to planning delays.

    The Lords Bill was an Opposition ambush, designed for the social media campaign at COP26.
    That doesn't really answer my point. Do you think it should be legal for water companies to allow discharge of raw sewage? The answer's straightforward, I think. And while there may be practical issues, as you mention, that stop it being solved overnight, the principle of such practice being against the law makes sense. As for it being an Opposition ambush, I believe that it was supported by their lordship across the political spectrum.
    In certain circumstances, yes.

    It might not be preferable, but what is a water company to do, when there’s tens of thousands of new homes built in their service area with planning permission refused to expand their treatment facility?
    Have a vote of local residents on the sewage treatment facility?
    That's a shit idea.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited October 2021

    Farooq said:

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    And many millions or even billions in UK pensions
    Oh, that's ok then
    It is if it is your UK pension
    Tbh Big_G if I thought my pension fund was invested in a company that pumped raw sewage into the sea I would be decidedly unhappy. It wouldn't be ok at all.
    I can understand that reaction but water companies are generally a safe investment for UK pensions funds

    I cannot comment on the detail or politics of the vote as I am not over the intricacies

    Investments are never safe and it is up to the investor to hedge against unexpected events or accept the risk of not doing so.
    That's how capitalism works. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    And many millions or even billions in UK pensions
    Oh, that's ok then
    It is if it is your UK pension
    No, the fact that pension companies invest in a company doesn't pardon the behaviour of that company.
    I mean, if you think that you're literally saying people and companies should be able to get away with whatever behaviour they like as long as they pay.
    If Your Holiness is in the business of selling indulgences, I've got some theses to nail to the door of the church.
    My point was that pension funds invest in water companies for UK pensioners

    On the face of it it is wrong to discharge sewage into the sea but there has to be more to it and I cannot pass comment as I am not aware of the detail
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    There was some discussion recently about why Germany apparently has a higher current Covid CFR than the UK (not sure which figures people were using, but just assuming it might be true). I don't think anyone mentioned the most obvious cause:
    Only 85% of people aged 60+ in Germany are fully vaccinated. Maybe someone has exact figures, but in the UK it seems to be something like 95%?
    So it would be quite surprising if the CFR wasn't higher in Germany. Germany also starts off with a slightly older population, which doesn't help.

    As for Der Spiegel's supposed "obsession" with Britain - I read it regularly and haven't noticed it at all. Right now the first story about Britain is 12th from the top (which is probably higher than average) - about spiked drinks quoting the Guardian and the Daily Mail. You have to scroll to about the 50th story to find the next article - apart from Man Utd Liverpool in the sports. Most days there are more articles about Turkey than about Britain - the fall in the Turkish Lira is the 4th story at the moment. Sorry WilliamGlenn your obsession is unrequited. Maybe if you are in Britain reading it in English they show you more articles about Britain?

  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459
    A final comment on sewage, then goodnight. Of course I'd nationalise the water companies.

    But I think the Tories on here defending last week's vote are misreading the public on this. It's coming over as 'Tories vote against stopping sewage being dumped in the sea and rivers'. A lot of beaches around the Kent coast have been closed to swimmers recently, with 'danger: unclean sea' type signs being put up. That's not good, and it isn't a party political issue.
  • dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    The problem was, that the discharges were happening becuase of lack of treatment capacity, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to planning delays.

    The Lords Bill was an Opposition ambush, designed for the social media campaign at COP26.
    That doesn't really answer my point. Do you think it should be legal for water companies to allow discharge of raw sewage? The answer's straightforward, I think. And while there may be practical issues, as you mention, that stop it being solved overnight, the principle of such practice being against the law makes sense. As for it being an Opposition ambush, I believe that it was supported by their lordship across the political spectrum.
    In certain circumstances, yes.

    It might not be preferable, but what is a water company to do, when there’s tens of thousands of new homes built in their service area with planning permission refused to expand their treatment facility?
    Have a vote of local residents on the sewage treatment facility?
    That's a shit idea.
    Indeed, fundamental!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    A final comment on sewage, then goodnight. Of course I'd nationalise the water companies.

    But I think the Tories on here defending last week's vote are misreading the public on this. It's coming over as 'Tories vote against stopping sewage being dumped in the sea and rivers'. A lot of beaches around the Kent coast have been closed to swimmers recently, with 'danger: unclean sea' type signs being put up. That's not good, and it isn't a party political issue.

    Those swimmers being the same NIMBYs who don’t want to expand the water treatment plant or replace hundred-year-old sewage mains?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    RobD said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so recently).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    It was mentioned up thread that the amendment would have made it the responsibility of the water company to prevent any dumping by anyone, not just themselves. Shouldn't the environment agency be responsible for policing that, not private companies?
    Here's the Bill (amendment); make of it what you will, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to me:

    https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41752/documents/350

    Methinks the water companies may have pretty strong links with the Tories, as it happens. Vested interests and all that.
    And many millions or even billions in UK pensions
    Oh, that's ok then
    It is if it is your UK pension
    No, the fact that pension companies invest in a company doesn't pardon the behaviour of that company.
    I mean, if you think that you're literally saying people and companies should be able to get away with whatever behaviour they like as long as they pay.
    If Your Holiness is in the business of selling indulgences, I've got some theses to nail to the door of the church.
    My point was that pension funds invest in water companies for UK pensioners

    On the face of it it is wrong to discharge sewage into the sea but there has to be more to it and I cannot pass comment as I am not aware of the detail
    Yes, your point was very clear and I understood it quite well.
    I'm saying that it doesn't matter. The law should not take into account the identity of the people or companies whose profits will be affected by regulatory action. To bend enforcement to that kind of good-investors/bad-investors principle has a name: crony capitalism.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,085
    edited October 2021

    Sandpit said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    The problem was, that the discharges were happening becuase of lack of treatment capacity, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to planning delays.

    The Lords Bill was an Opposition ambush, designed for the social media campaign at COP26.
    That doesn't really answer my point. Do you think it should be legal for water companies to allow discharge of raw sewage? The answer's straightforward, I think. And while there may be practical issues, as you mention, that stop it being solved overnight, the principle of such practice being against the law makes sense. As for it being an Opposition ambush, I believe that it was supported by their lordship across the political spectrum.
    I agree largely with your comment though I am not familiar with th
    However attacking water company shareholders profits is unfair as pension funds will invest in them
    It makes the problem trickier, sure, but the issue doesn't go away, and the finger ends up pointing back at us.

    It's really tempting in situations like this to assume that there is some Evil Rich Guy who has subverted the system and caused all the bad stuff so that he can fill his swimming pool with fifty pound notes.

    The unpleasant reality is that the problems are often down to choices we have made as investors, consumers and voters. You don't like the way that supermarkets treat farmers and delivery staff? Fair point, but we don't have to shop there- it's been our choice. You think that public services and state pensions are unacceptably threadbare? You're probably right, but we've all voted for the government to give us too much stuff for too little tax for decades... and collectively, we've rewarded politicians who have found scams to cut a penny off the basic rate.

    In this case, the amount we have been prepared to pay for sewage, coupled with the financial returns demanded of water companies have put us in a position where companies end up discharging sewage into rivers and the sea. And in a modern, prosperous country, that can't be right.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Sandpit said:

    A final comment on sewage, then goodnight. Of course I'd nationalise the water companies.

    But I think the Tories on here defending last week's vote are misreading the public on this. It's coming over as 'Tories vote against stopping sewage being dumped in the sea and rivers'. A lot of beaches around the Kent coast have been closed to swimmers recently, with 'danger: unclean sea' type signs being put up. That's not good, and it isn't a party political issue.

    Those swimmers being the same NIMBYs who don’t want to expand the water treatment plant or replace hundred-year-old sewage mains?
    Maybe. Maybe not.
    I think it's unfair to condemn a child to cryptosporidium for the actions of her parents, or her parents' neighbours.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    kamski said:

    There was some discussion recently about why Germany apparently has a higher current Covid CFR than the UK (not sure which figures people were using, but just assuming it might be true). I don't think anyone mentioned the most obvious cause:
    Only 85% of people aged 60+ in Germany are fully vaccinated. Maybe someone has exact figures, but in the UK it seems to be something like 95%?
    So it would be quite surprising if the CFR wasn't higher in Germany. Germany also starts off with a slightly older population, which doesn't help.

    As for Der Spiegel's supposed "obsession" with Britain - I read it regularly and haven't noticed it at all. Right now the first story about Britain is 12th from the top (which is probably higher than average) - about spiked drinks quoting the Guardian and the Daily Mail. You have to scroll to about the 50th story to find the next article - apart from Man Utd Liverpool in the sports. Most days there are more articles about Turkey than about Britain - the fall in the Turkish Lira is the 4th story at the moment. Sorry WilliamGlenn your obsession is unrequited. Maybe if you are in Britain reading it in English they show you more articles about Britain?

    It was the German edition earlier in the day. It's been updated now because the Sunday-evening German stories have been published.

    This was the lead story:

    "Pubs und Klubs in Großbritannien - K.-o.-Tropfen aus der Kanüle?"

    https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/k-o-tropfen-aus-der-kanuele-a-d76ce467-d510-4e9d-8f02-740c07ea60dc

    And these were the second and third stories:

    "Britische Busfahrer wollen jetzt lieber Lkw fahren"

    https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/brexit-krise-in-grossbritannien-britische-busfahrer-wollen-jetzt-lieber-lkw-fahren-a-5d74029a-de6d-4fb7-aeda-0569e571bb97

    "Blackout international - ...in Großbritannien heizen Großmütter nur, wenn die Enkel kommen..."

    https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/energiekrise-wie-sich-hohe-kosten-und-der-mangel-international-auswirken-a-b0e3960b-1841-40a4-996f-b5d0ec6e380a


    Cases are shooting up now, so if there's a problem with unvaccinated vulnerable people, Germany will have a difficult winter.

    image
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    Yes it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her current predicament.

    She was already in prison and already being held hostage long before the PM spoke. The Iranians were already increasing her sentence before he spoke too.

    That's why he was asked about the situation. Because it had already happened. Unless the Iranians have a TARDIS her being in this predicament has not a scintilla of a relationship to what happened after she ended up in this predicament.

    But if you find it easier to blame the PM of the UK instead of the Iranians holding her hostage, then that's on you. 🤷‍♂️
    What is this "that's on you" shit? Is English your first language?
    Yes it is. It means its your fault:

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats on you
    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/that's+one+on+you
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/162636/what-does-it-s-all-on-you-mean

    I don't get why kinabalu and you feel like you have to be grammar nazis over perfectly normal usage of the English language. I don't bug you over how you speak.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    kamski said:

    There was some discussion recently about why Germany apparently has a higher current Covid CFR than the UK (not sure which figures people were using, but just assuming it might be true). I don't think anyone mentioned the most obvious cause:
    Only 85% of people aged 60+ in Germany are fully vaccinated. Maybe someone has exact figures, but in the UK it seems to be something like 95%?
    So it would be quite surprising if the CFR wasn't higher in Germany. Germany also starts off with a slightly older population, which doesn't help.

    As for Der Spiegel's supposed "obsession" with Britain - I read it regularly and haven't noticed it at all. Right now the first story about Britain is 12th from the top (which is probably higher than average) - about spiked drinks quoting the Guardian and the Daily Mail. You have to scroll to about the 50th story to find the next article - apart from Man Utd Liverpool in the sports. Most days there are more articles about Turkey than about Britain - the fall in the Turkish Lira is the 4th story at the moment. Sorry WilliamGlenn your obsession is unrequited. Maybe if you are in Britain reading it in English they show you more articles about Britain?

    It was the German edition earlier in the day. It's been updated now because the Sunday-evening German stories have been published.

    This was the lead story:

    "Pubs und Klubs in Großbritannien - K.-o.-Tropfen aus der Kanüle?"

    https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/k-o-tropfen-aus-der-kanuele-a-d76ce467-d510-4e9d-8f02-740c07ea60dc

    And these were the second and third stories:

    "Britische Busfahrer wollen jetzt lieber Lkw fahren"

    https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/brexit-krise-in-grossbritannien-britische-busfahrer-wollen-jetzt-lieber-lkw-fahren-a-5d74029a-de6d-4fb7-aeda-0569e571bb97

    "Blackout international - ...in Großbritannien heizen Großmütter nur, wenn die Enkel kommen..."

    https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/energiekrise-wie-sich-hohe-kosten-und-der-mangel-international-auswirken-a-b0e3960b-1841-40a4-996f-b5d0ec6e380a


    Cases are shooting up now, so if there's a problem with unvaccinated vulnerable people, Germany will have a difficult winter.

    image
    Spiegel likes grumpy stories in general - part of their self-image of the people who tell you awkward facts. But you're actually selecting there from three subsections rather than the main page. I read a lot of German press and it's misleading to suggest that they're fascinated by us, any more than we have loads of stories about Germany in British papers. I'd like to think that readers generally are fascinated by other countries, but sadly...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,216
    Jesus Christ. Just watched “The Forgotten Battle” - a Dutch war movie about a little known sideshow in WW2, in which the Allies had to win some obscure islands to reach Antwerp

    It is relentless and harrowing and brilliant. It came out in 2020 so I suspect it got lost in Covid.

    It’s better than Saving Private Ryan. It’s classic old school war movie stuff, but with added authenticity and a cleverly but not sentimentally interwoven plotline

    It is in the top 10 on Netflix right now and deservedly so. Possibly a masterpiece, certainly great film-making

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    I like (I think) that "likes" are tabulated on PB.

    Question - is there any tabulation (actual or possible) for number of times that a posters posts are "quoted" as per the system?

    Possibly a preferable portrait of a PBer's posting prowess, perhaps?

    Would be rather a good indication in theory, though as with scientific citations as a guide to genius they can be misleading (YHUFD does not command universal support here, but he gets quoted a lot) and deliberately gamed. The alleged vote-rigging of Poster of the Year a few years ago shows that people will actually bother!
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    Yes it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her current predicament.

    She was already in prison and already being held hostage long before the PM spoke. The Iranians were already increasing her sentence before he spoke too.

    That's why he was asked about the situation. Because it had already happened. Unless the Iranians have a TARDIS her being in this predicament has not a scintilla of a relationship to what happened after she ended up in this predicament.

    But if you find it easier to blame the PM of the UK instead of the Iranians holding her hostage, then that's on you. 🤷‍♂️
    What is this "that's on you" shit? Is English your first language?
    Yes it is. It means its your fault:

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats on you
    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/that's+one+on+you
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/162636/what-does-it-s-all-on-you-mean

    I don't get why kinabalu and you feel like you have to be grammar nazis over perfectly normal usage of the English language. I don't bug you over how you speak.
    Actually, it's "grammar Nazis". Capital N.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,152
    It's Monday.

    Two days to the Budget. Looking forward to the discussion on it on here 👍

    GN all 😊
  • Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    Yes it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her current predicament.

    She was already in prison and already being held hostage long before the PM spoke. The Iranians were already increasing her sentence before he spoke too.

    That's why he was asked about the situation. Because it had already happened. Unless the Iranians have a TARDIS her being in this predicament has not a scintilla of a relationship to what happened after she ended up in this predicament.

    But if you find it easier to blame the PM of the UK instead of the Iranians holding her hostage, then that's on you. 🤷‍♂️
    What is this "that's on you" shit? Is English your first language?
    Yes it is. It means its your fault:

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats on you
    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/that's+one+on+you
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/162636/what-does-it-s-all-on-you-mean

    I don't get why kinabalu and you feel like you have to be grammar nazis over perfectly normal usage of the English language. I don't bug you over how you speak.
    Actually, it's "grammar Nazis". Capital N.
    You grammar Nazi, you!
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    Yes it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her current predicament.

    She was already in prison and already being held hostage long before the PM spoke. The Iranians were already increasing her sentence before he spoke too.

    That's why he was asked about the situation. Because it had already happened. Unless the Iranians have a TARDIS her being in this predicament has not a scintilla of a relationship to what happened after she ended up in this predicament.

    But if you find it easier to blame the PM of the UK instead of the Iranians holding her hostage, then that's on you. 🤷‍♂️
    What is this "that's on you" shit? Is English your first language?
    Yes it is. It means its your fault:

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats on you
    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/that's+one+on+you
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/162636/what-does-it-s-all-on-you-mean

    I don't get why kinabalu and you feel like you have to be grammar nazis over perfectly normal usage of the English language. I don't bug you over how you speak.
    Actually, it's "grammar Nazis". Capital N.
    You grammar Nazi, you!
    I'm more of a grammar Juche.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    Yes it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her current predicament.

    She was already in prison and already being held hostage long before the PM spoke. The Iranians were already increasing her sentence before he spoke too.

    That's why he was asked about the situation. Because it had already happened. Unless the Iranians have a TARDIS her being in this predicament has not a scintilla of a relationship to what happened after she ended up in this predicament.

    But if you find it easier to blame the PM of the UK instead of the Iranians holding her hostage, then that's on you. 🤷‍♂️
    What is this "that's on you" shit? Is English your first language?
    Yes it is. It means its your fault:

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats on you
    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/that's+one+on+you
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/162636/what-does-it-s-all-on-you-mean

    I don't get why kinabalu and you feel like you have to be grammar nazis over perfectly normal usage of the English language. I don't bug you over how you speak.
    Actually, it's "grammar Nazis". Capital N.
    You grammar Nazi, you!
    I'm more of a grammar Juche.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGeLnX3aj40
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    Yes it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her current predicament.

    She was already in prison and already being held hostage long before the PM spoke. The Iranians were already increasing her sentence before he spoke too.

    That's why he was asked about the situation. Because it had already happened. Unless the Iranians have a TARDIS her being in this predicament has not a scintilla of a relationship to what happened after she ended up in this predicament.

    But if you find it easier to blame the PM of the UK instead of the Iranians holding her hostage, then that's on you. 🤷‍♂️
    What is this "that's on you" shit? Is English your first language?
    Yes it is. It means its your fault:

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats on you
    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/that's+one+on+you
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/162636/what-does-it-s-all-on-you-mean

    I don't get why kinabalu and you feel like you have to be grammar nazis over perfectly normal usage of the English language. I don't bug you over how you speak.
    Actually, it's "grammar Nazis". Capital N.
    You grammar Nazi, you!
    I'm more of a grammar Juche.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGeLnX3aj40
    Careful, I wouldn't insult Alec Baldwin... you never know what might happen.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    kamski said:

    There was some discussion recently about why Germany apparently has a higher current Covid CFR than the UK (not sure which figures people were using, but just assuming it might be true). I don't think anyone mentioned the most obvious cause:
    Only 85% of people aged 60+ in Germany are fully vaccinated. Maybe someone has exact figures, but in the UK it seems to be something like 95%?
    So it would be quite surprising if the CFR wasn't higher in Germany. Germany also starts off with a slightly older population, which doesn't help.

    As for Der Spiegel's supposed "obsession" with Britain - I read it regularly and haven't noticed it at all. Right now the first story about Britain is 12th from the top (which is probably higher than average) - about spiked drinks quoting the Guardian and the Daily Mail. You have to scroll to about the 50th story to find the next article - apart from Man Utd Liverpool in the sports. Most days there are more articles about Turkey than about Britain - the fall in the Turkish Lira is the 4th story at the moment. Sorry WilliamGlenn your obsession is unrequited. Maybe if you are in Britain reading it in English they show you more articles about Britain?

    It was the German edition earlier in the day. It's been updated now because the Sunday-evening German stories have been published.

    This was the lead story:

    "Pubs und Klubs in Großbritannien - K.-o.-Tropfen aus der Kanüle?"

    https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/k-o-tropfen-aus-der-kanuele-a-d76ce467-d510-4e9d-8f02-740c07ea60dc

    And these were the second and third stories:

    "Britische Busfahrer wollen jetzt lieber Lkw fahren"

    https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/brexit-krise-in-grossbritannien-britische-busfahrer-wollen-jetzt-lieber-lkw-fahren-a-5d74029a-de6d-4fb7-aeda-0569e571bb97

    "Blackout international - ...in Großbritannien heizen Großmütter nur, wenn die Enkel kommen..."

    https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/energiekrise-wie-sich-hohe-kosten-und-der-mangel-international-auswirken-a-b0e3960b-1841-40a4-996f-b5d0ec6e380a


    Cases are shooting up now, so if there's a problem with unvaccinated vulnerable people, Germany will have a difficult winter.

    image
    Spiegel likes grumpy stories in general - part of their self-image of the people who tell you awkward facts. But you're actually selecting there from three subsections rather than the main page. I read a lot of German press and it's misleading to suggest that they're fascinated by us, any more than we have loads of stories about Germany in British papers. I'd like to think that readers generally are fascinated by other countries, but sadly...
    I’m not selecting. They were the top three stories on the main site at the time I made the original post. If I’d known people would be so sceptical I’d have taken a screenshot.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853
    edited October 2021
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    On raw sewage:

    1. PT is quite right, the law currently allows raw sewage to be deposited by water companies into the sea (although Southern Water was recently fined £90m for deliberately doing so).
    2. The House of Lords passed an amendment to make such deposits illegal.
    3. The Tories whipped against it in the HoC, so it failed.

    I can't see any defence for the Tories here. What sort of world do we live in where it's legal for water companies to deposit raw sewage into the sea? The fact that it's been 'legal' in the past is hardly relevant - it shouldn't have been. There was a chance to change it. They didn't take it.

    The problem was, that the discharges were happening becuase of lack of treatment capacity, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to planning delays.

    The Lords Bill was an Opposition ambush, designed for the social media campaign at COP26.
    That doesn't really answer my point. Do you think it should be legal for water companies to allow discharge of raw sewage? The answer's straightforward, I think. And while there may be practical issues, as you mention, that stop it being solved overnight, the principle of such practice being against the law makes sense. As for it being an Opposition ambush, I believe that it was supported by their lordship across the political spectrum.
    In certain circumstances, yes.

    It might not be preferable, but what is a water company to do, when there’s tens of thousands of new homes built in their service area with planning permission refused to expand their treatment facility?
    Not just that, but another problem is that there are too many houses with connections from their rainfall drainage to the sewer instead of the surface water drain. It isn't supposed to happen, but it does.

    There is a limit to the amount of water that the treatment works can deal with and in thunderstorms it can be overwhelmed.

    We are a million miles from where we used to be, though.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    Yes it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her current predicament.

    She was already in prison and already being held hostage long before the PM spoke. The Iranians were already increasing her sentence before he spoke too.

    That's why he was asked about the situation. Because it had already happened. Unless the Iranians have a TARDIS her being in this predicament has not a scintilla of a relationship to what happened after she ended up in this predicament.

    But if you find it easier to blame the PM of the UK instead of the Iranians holding her hostage, then that's on you. 🤷‍♂️
    What is this "that's on you" shit? Is English your first language?
    Yes it is. It means its your fault:

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats on you
    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/that's+one+on+you
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/162636/what-does-it-s-all-on-you-mean

    I don't get why kinabalu and you feel like you have to be grammar nazis over perfectly normal usage of the English language. I don't bug you over how you speak.
    Actually, it's "grammar Nazis". Capital N.
    You grammar Nazi, you!
    I'm more of a grammar Juche.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGeLnX3aj40
    Careful, I wouldn't insult Alec Baldwin... you never know what might happen.
    I know it's in bad taste, but I can't help thinking of the scene in The Hunt for Red October:

    Sean Connery: Hey, Ryan, be careful what you shoot at. Most things in here don't react too well to bullets.

    Alec Baldwin: Right. *I* have to be careful what *I* shoot at?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199

    kamski said:

    There was some discussion recently about why Germany apparently has a higher current Covid CFR than the UK (not sure which figures people were using, but just assuming it might be true). I don't think anyone mentioned the most obvious cause:
    Only 85% of people aged 60+ in Germany are fully vaccinated. Maybe someone has exact figures, but in the UK it seems to be something like 95%?
    So it would be quite surprising if the CFR wasn't higher in Germany. Germany also starts off with a slightly older population, which doesn't help.

    As for Der Spiegel's supposed "obsession" with Britain - I read it regularly and haven't noticed it at all. Right now the first story about Britain is 12th from the top (which is probably higher than average) - about spiked drinks quoting the Guardian and the Daily Mail. You have to scroll to about the 50th story to find the next article - apart from Man Utd Liverpool in the sports. Most days there are more articles about Turkey than about Britain - the fall in the Turkish Lira is the 4th story at the moment. Sorry WilliamGlenn your obsession is unrequited. Maybe if you are in Britain reading it in English they show you more articles about Britain?

    It was the German edition earlier in the day. It's been updated now because the Sunday-evening German stories have been published.

    This was the lead story:

    "Pubs und Klubs in Großbritannien - K.-o.-Tropfen aus der Kanüle?"

    https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/k-o-tropfen-aus-der-kanuele-a-d76ce467-d510-4e9d-8f02-740c07ea60dc

    And these were the second and third stories:

    "Britische Busfahrer wollen jetzt lieber Lkw fahren"

    https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/brexit-krise-in-grossbritannien-britische-busfahrer-wollen-jetzt-lieber-lkw-fahren-a-5d74029a-de6d-4fb7-aeda-0569e571bb97

    "Blackout international - ...in Großbritannien heizen Großmütter nur, wenn die Enkel kommen..."

    https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/energiekrise-wie-sich-hohe-kosten-und-der-mangel-international-auswirken-a-b0e3960b-1841-40a4-996f-b5d0ec6e380a


    Cases are shooting up now, so if there's a problem with unvaccinated vulnerable people, Germany will have a difficult winter.

    image
    Spiegel likes grumpy stories in general - part of their self-image of the people who tell you awkward facts. But you're actually selecting there from three subsections rather than the main page. I read a lot of German press and it's misleading to suggest that they're fascinated by us, any more than we have loads of stories about Germany in British papers. I'd like to think that readers generally are fascinated by other countries, but sadly...
    I’m not selecting. They were the top three stories on the main site at the time I made the original post. If I’d known people would be so sceptical I’d have taken a screenshot.
    But you have to admit it's pretty rare, and normal service has now resumed. Right now the top 10 foreign stories are from:
    US
    Turkey
    Mexico
    DR Congo
    France
    Ukraine
    India
    Britain
    Netherlands
    US again

    in that order. But maybe your "obsessed" was tongue in cheek.

    All the stories are negative, as news stories tend to be. So no special treatment for Britain!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,583
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    It provided the Iranians with a convenient excuse plus additional leverage (personal embarrassment).

    But they would have found another excuse if he hadn’t said it
    My presumption was that she *was* teaching journalism and that admitting it was thought (incorrectly) to be likely to improve her position.
    The worst possible case for people to bring up.

    She’s an Iranian citizen, who committed offences in Iran and was arrested in Iran.

    There’s a huge misunderstanding as to the law on dual citizenship, deliberately so on the part of her British supporters - the UK government can do precisely nothing under international law, and the Iranians are going to enjoy rubbing their noses in it, no matter who is the British representative trying to negotiate on her behalf.
    Yes. Still fucking brilliant to give the game away because you are too lazy to read your briefing notes properly
    Such incompetence would have stopped any other political figure of the last fifty years dead in their tracks, but not Johnson. You can see by the reaction on here, there are enough people who will give him a free pass, irrespective of the chaos he leaves in his wake.

    I am sure Johnson's complacency is something we will all live to regret one day.
  • I like (I think) that "likes" are tabulated on PB.

    Question - is there any tabulation (actual or possible) for number of times that a posters posts are "quoted" as per the system?

    Possibly a preferable portrait of a PBer's posting prowess, perhaps?

    Would be rather a good indication in theory, though as with scientific citations as a guide to genius they can be misleading (YHUFD does not command universal support here, but he gets quoted a lot) and deliberately gamed. The alleged vote-rigging of Poster of the Year a few years ago shows that people will actually bother!
    Likes give pretty reasonable indication of support on some level (often comic) though hardly infallible.

    My thought was/is that number of quotes/replies is indication of influence (or irritation, which amounts to much same thing as demonstrated by POTUS #45) among the PB herd. Where immunity is NOT an option!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    kamski said:

    There was some discussion recently about why Germany apparently has a higher current Covid CFR than the UK (not sure which figures people were using, but just assuming it might be true). I don't think anyone mentioned the most obvious cause:
    Only 85% of people aged 60+ in Germany are fully vaccinated. Maybe someone has exact figures, but in the UK it seems to be something like 95%?
    So it would be quite surprising if the CFR wasn't higher in Germany. Germany also starts off with a slightly older population, which doesn't help.

    As for Der Spiegel's supposed "obsession" with Britain - I read it regularly and haven't noticed it at all. Right now the first story about Britain is 12th from the top (which is probably higher than average) - about spiked drinks quoting the Guardian and the Daily Mail. You have to scroll to about the 50th story to find the next article - apart from Man Utd Liverpool in the sports. Most days there are more articles about Turkey than about Britain - the fall in the Turkish Lira is the 4th story at the moment. Sorry WilliamGlenn your obsession is unrequited. Maybe if you are in Britain reading it in English they show you more articles about Britain?

    It was the German edition earlier in the day. It's been updated now because the Sunday-evening German stories have been published.

    This was the lead story:

    "Pubs und Klubs in Großbritannien - K.-o.-Tropfen aus der Kanüle?"

    https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/k-o-tropfen-aus-der-kanuele-a-d76ce467-d510-4e9d-8f02-740c07ea60dc

    And these were the second and third stories:

    "Britische Busfahrer wollen jetzt lieber Lkw fahren"

    https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/brexit-krise-in-grossbritannien-britische-busfahrer-wollen-jetzt-lieber-lkw-fahren-a-5d74029a-de6d-4fb7-aeda-0569e571bb97

    "Blackout international - ...in Großbritannien heizen Großmütter nur, wenn die Enkel kommen..."

    https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/energiekrise-wie-sich-hohe-kosten-und-der-mangel-international-auswirken-a-b0e3960b-1841-40a4-996f-b5d0ec6e380a


    Cases are shooting up now, so if there's a problem with unvaccinated vulnerable people, Germany will have a difficult winter.

    image
    Spiegel likes grumpy stories in general - part of their self-image of the people who tell you awkward facts. But you're actually selecting there from three subsections rather than the main page. I read a lot of German press and it's misleading to suggest that they're fascinated by us, any more than we have loads of stories about Germany in British papers. I'd like to think that readers generally are fascinated by other countries, but sadly...
    I’m not selecting. They were the top three stories on the main site at the time I made the original post. If I’d known people would be so sceptical I’d have taken a screenshot.
    What you need to do is to look at (say) 100 days of front pages and to rate stories by (a) negativity, and (b) country.

    That would enable you to identify which countries Spiegel featured and their level of negativity.

    The danger is that you saw this, and it stood out, and it is lots of (negative) focus on the UK! But is it normal? Or is just random?

    Without looking at a representative sample, you might just be seeing faces in the clouds.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    A final comment on sewage, then goodnight. Of course I'd nationalise the water companies.

    But I think the Tories on here defending last week's vote are misreading the public on this. It's coming over as 'Tories vote against stopping sewage being dumped in the sea and rivers'. A lot of beaches around the Kent coast have been closed to swimmers recently, with 'danger: unclean sea' type signs being put up. That's not good, and it isn't a party political issue.

    The PR is terrible

    But it was a bad amendment

    And it’s supporters are lying about the impact to bash the Tories
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59030936

    For those who think the jizz sack's antics are just a bit of harmless fun.

    It’s nothing to do with anything Boris has said.

    She’s a hostage. That’s all.
    You think saying she was teaching journalism had no bearing on her current predicament?

    It may not have done, we don't know. But the laziness, inattention to detail and insouciance about outcomes for brown people are telling.
    It provided the Iranians with a convenient excuse plus additional leverage (personal embarrassment).

    But they would have found another excuse if he hadn’t said it
    My presumption was that she *was* teaching journalism and that admitting it was thought (incorrectly) to be likely to improve her position.
    The worst possible case for people to bring up.

    She’s an Iranian citizen, who committed offences in Iran and was arrested in Iran.

    There’s a huge misunderstanding as to the law on dual citizenship, deliberately so on the part of her British supporters - the UK government can do precisely nothing under international law, and the Iranians are going to enjoy rubbing their noses in it, no matter who is the British representative trying to negotiate on her behalf.
    Yes. Still fucking brilliant to give the game away because you are too lazy to read your briefing notes properly
    Such incompetence would have stopped any other political figure of the last fifty years dead in their tracks, but not Johnson. You can see by the reaction on here, there are enough people who will give him a free pass, irrespective of the chaos he leaves in his wake.

    I am sure Johnson's complacency is something we will all live to regret one day.
    "I'm not fan of Boris but..."
    is going to be on this country's fucking tombstone
This discussion has been closed.