Patrick Reevell @Reevellp Crazy scene. People in a Russian supermarket frantically scuffling for bags of sugar amid worries of shortages because of the war in Ukraine.
Sobering to read some of the comments on this thread about relatives' experiences - they were such an amazing generation. My own parents were lucky - my father had a desk job in intelligence (which he almost never talked about, loyal to the Official Secrets Act), my mother worked for UNRRA for refugees, and talked matter-of-factly as the worst moment being driving through Hammersmith while the buildings on both sides were on fire. Neither experienced any harm at all.
On a more cheerful note, it's always fun to argue about lists, and here's the happiness list, with FINLAND winning again. Makes sense!
Finland, Finland, Finland The country where I quite want to be Your mountains so lofty Your treetops so tall Finland, Finland, Finland Finland has it all
I honestly don't understand what it is going on in these cases. I know the Baroness was making a point about there being a man on the ward, but that seems beside the point.
Supposedly the ward staff's sole response to the suggestion there had been a rape on the ward was that there were no men on the ward, which seems to indicate a complete lack of any cognitive function whatsoever, investigation, or any instinct to believe or listen to the victim at all.
I don't think it's particularly helpful to think of the main point being whether the assault or rape was perpetrated by a man or woman given the imbelic nature of the (apparent) response.
Doesn't make sense given that women (in all senses) can and do commit sexual assaults.
Because the very precise legal definition of a 'rape' is 'penetration by a penis.'
So the hospital were dancing on the head of a pin here: 'well, she can't have been raped, no penises to do it.' Therefore implying there was no chance of any sexual assault at all.
And the reason of course is because as @Cyclefree notes if they admitted there had been there was a major safeguarding breach.
The issue now is that in addition to letting their patients be raped that hospital trust has committed the crime of perverting the course of justice.
All in all it is a brutally clear exposition of why self identification without certain very strict safeguards (I.e. call yourself what you like but no accessing female only spaces until transition is complete) is a very bad idea.
I'm not even sure it is a correct assessment of the law, it would appear by all accounts that the perpetrator had a penis.
The law does say "his penis" (etc.) but there is plenty of law on the statute book that refers to "he" when it means "a person".
i think you've slightly missed the point. We're not talking about the law on what rape is or isn't. That's crystal clear. It's the hospital's response that is the issue by conflating 'identifying as a woman' with 'not having a penis.'
The fact is, surely, that a serious assault has been committed, whether or not it is 'rape' and the victim needs 'justice'. Which is conviction and punishment of the offender.
I honestly don't understand what it is going on in these cases. I know the Baroness was making a point about there being a man on the ward, but that seems beside the point.
Supposedly the ward staff's sole response to the suggestion there had been a rape on the ward was that there were no men on the ward, which seems to indicate a complete lack of any cognitive function whatsoever, investigation, or any instinct to believe or listen to the victim at all.
I don't think it's particularly helpful to think of the main point being whether the assault or rape was perpetrated by a man or woman given the imbelic nature of the (apparent) response.
Doesn't make sense given that women (in all senses) can and do commit sexual assaults.
Because the very precise legal definition of a 'rape' is 'penetration by a penis.'
So the hospital were dancing on the head of a pin here: 'well, she can't have been raped, no penises to do it.' Therefore implying there was no chance of any sexual assault at all.
And the reason of course is because as @Cyclefree notes if they admitted there had been there was a major safeguarding breach.
The issue now is that in addition to letting their patients be raped that hospital trust has committed the crime of perverting the course of justice.
All in all it is a brutally clear exposition of why self identification without certain very strict safeguards (I.e. call yourself what you like but no accessing female only spaces until transition is complete) is a very bad idea.
I suspect that, sorry Ms Cyclefree, but there were a couple of 'tough' Sisters on that ward: 'What, a man on my ward! Nonsense!' And no-one argued with them.
That's an old fashioned take.
More likely, everyone in the hospital had done their TransFriendly training - therefore self identification trumps all. Anyone accusing a self-identified woman of rape, is "accusing" them of being a man. Since they aren't a man (see training) the complaint is false and transphobic.
We live in an age where everyone has been trained. Those involved in Rotherham from the official side did thousands of hours on safeguarding, protecting the interests of the child, safety cases etc etc. A number of them had post graduate degrees in child care related areas. Many of them still maintain that they were committed to the highest standards of child care. They probably believe it as well - have they not lined their walls with the finest collection of certificates for all the courses they have done?
GG has gone full 'For the Motherland, for Stalin!' Presumably the shutting down of lucrative RT gigs has sent him tonto.
'sent him?'
Unthinking and frankly irrational support for a country that (thank god) has not existed for more than 30 years now. Yes, that sounds like George. He's always had a bit of a thing for "strong men" (ie fascists) too, of course. Contemptible doesn't really cover him or his views.
I honestly don't understand what it is going on in these cases. I know the Baroness was making a point about there being a man on the ward, but that seems beside the point.
Supposedly the ward staff's sole response to the suggestion there had been a rape on the ward was that there were no men on the ward, which seems to indicate a complete lack of any cognitive function whatsoever, investigation, or any instinct to believe or listen to the victim at all.
I don't think it's particularly helpful to think of the main point being whether the assault or rape was perpetrated by a man or woman given the imbelic nature of the (apparent) response.
Doesn't make sense given that women (in all senses) can and do commit sexual assaults.
Because the very precise legal definition of a 'rape' is 'penetration by a penis.'
So the hospital were dancing on the head of a pin here: 'well, she can't have been raped, no penises to do it.' Therefore implying there was no chance of any sexual assault at all.
And the reason of course is because as @Cyclefree notes if they admitted there had been there was a major safeguarding breach.
The issue now is that in addition to letting their patients be raped that hospital trust has committed the crime of perverting the course of justice.
All in all it is a brutally clear exposition of why self identification without certain very strict safeguards (I.e. call yourself what you like but no accessing female only spaces until transition is complete) is a very bad idea.
I'm not even sure it is a correct assessment of the law, it would appear by all accounts that the perpetrator had a penis.
The law does say "his penis" (etc.) but there is plenty of law on the statute book that refers to "he" when it means "a person".
i think you've slightly missed the point. We're not talking about the law on what rape is or isn't. That's crystal clear. It's the hospital's response that is the issue by conflating 'identifying as a woman' with 'not having a penis.'
The fact is, surely, that a serious assault has been committed, whether or not it is 'rape' and the victim needs 'justice'. Which is conviction and punishment of the offender.
That would be a part of it, certainly, and doubtless from the point of view of the victim much the most important part. But we also need to ask ourselves how a hospital trust could conceal a crime to support a policy, which is in itself a further criminal act.
Patrick Reevell @Reevellp Crazy scene. People in a Russian supermarket frantically scuffling for bags of sugar amid worries of shortages because of the war in Ukraine.
I read somewhere else that it was a Finnish-owned supermarket who are pulling out and that there was some special 'thing' about their sugar that makes it extra popular. So maybe not _quite_ as bad as it looks.
I honestly don't understand what it is going on in these cases. I know the Baroness was making a point about there being a man on the ward, but that seems beside the point.
Supposedly the ward staff's sole response to the suggestion there had been a rape on the ward was that there were no men on the ward, which seems to indicate a complete lack of any cognitive function whatsoever, investigation, or any instinct to believe or listen to the victim at all.
I don't think it's particularly helpful to think of the main point being whether the assault or rape was perpetrated by a man or woman given the imbelic nature of the (apparent) response.
Doesn't make sense given that women (in all senses) can and do commit sexual assaults.
Because the very precise legal definition of a 'rape' is 'penetration by a penis.'
So the hospital were dancing on the head of a pin here: 'well, she can't have been raped, no penises to do it.' Therefore implying there was no chance of any sexual assault at all.
And the reason of course is because as @Cyclefree notes if they admitted there had been there was a major safeguarding breach.
The issue now is that in addition to letting their patients be raped that hospital trust has committed the crime of perverting the course of justice.
All in all it is a brutally clear exposition of why self identification without certain very strict safeguards (I.e. call yourself what you like but no accessing female only spaces until transition is complete) is a very bad idea.
I'm not even sure it is a correct assessment of the law, it would appear by all accounts that the perpetrator had a penis.
The law does say "his penis" (etc.) but there is plenty of law on the statute book that refers to "he" when it means "a person".
i think you've slightly missed the point. We're not talking about the law on what rape is or isn't. That's crystal clear. It's the hospital's response that is the issue by conflating 'identifying as a woman' with 'not having a penis.'
The fact is, surely, that a serious assault has been committed, whether or not it is 'rape' and the victim needs 'justice'. Which is conviction and punishment of the offender.
That would be a part of it, certainly, and doubtless from the point of view of the victim much the most important part. But we also need to ask ourselves how a hospital trust could conceal a crime to support a policy, which is in itself a further criminal act.
Hospital trusts (and the organisation that proceeded them) have a long history of covering up crimes. As I recall a politician even suggested that those uncovering said crimes were "attacking the NHS".
Grandfathers - one too young for the First, too old for the Second (and I remember it coming up in conversation in the sixties). The other, also too young for the First lied about his age to sign up. Pretty promptly ended up a POW and spent a year or so in a German camp.
Grandmothers. One, the eldest of 10 in Wick, fisherman father, was sent into Service, but her Granny read of a murder in Glasgow, so she was diverted to London instead. When I tried to explain to her how to use an escalator she commented she’d been running on and off them as a teenager. When she’d remark “worse things happen at sea” she knew of what she spoke.
The other grandmother was the youngest of 11, so while her elder siblings were sent out to work, like my Wick Grandmother, she and her older sister were trained as a teacher and pharmacist respectively. When she got her first car in the 1920s to drive to Glamis school, her engineer brother advised her that as roads then had a considerable camber, best to drive in the middle, a habit she found difficult to shake. I wish I’d understood at the time what a kick it gave her to tell people that her grandchild was going to Oxford - an unimaginable achievement for a jute mill worker’s daughter. As a teenager I was mortified.
My mother qualified as a pharmacist in the late 20's.Many years later her granddaughter followed her into the profession and remarked that of her fellow students several had fathers who were pharmacists, one or two had mother who were, but no-one else had a Granny who was!
Btw, if gridwatch is accurate (big 'if' I know) currently 59% of our electricity is from wind or solar, and just 8% from gas. We're even exporting substantial amounts of power to France.
Hardly surprising given it's perfect conditions, windy, warm but not too warm, and sunny, but good news nevertheless.
Btw, if gridwatch is accurate (big 'if' I know) currently 59% of our electricity is from wind or solar, and just 8% from gas. We're even exporting substantial amounts of power to France.
Hardly surprising given it's perfect conditions, windy, warm but not too warm, and sunny, but good news nevertheless.
I'm off to the gym. See you later.
Hope that that exercise bike is linked to the grid, I am about to put a kettle on.
I honestly don't understand what it is going on in these cases. I know the Baroness was making a point about there being a man on the ward, but that seems beside the point.
Supposedly the ward staff's sole response to the suggestion there had been a rape on the ward was that there were no men on the ward, which seems to indicate a complete lack of any cognitive function whatsoever, investigation, or any instinct to believe or listen to the victim at all.
I don't think it's particularly helpful to think of the main point being whether the assault or rape was perpetrated by a man or woman given the imbelic nature of the (apparent) response.
Doesn't make sense given that women (in all senses) can and do commit sexual assaults.
Because the very precise legal definition of a 'rape' is 'penetration by a penis.'
So the hospital were dancing on the head of a pin here: 'well, she can't have been raped, no penises to do it.' Therefore implying there was no chance of any sexual assault at all.
And the reason of course is because as @Cyclefree notes if they admitted there had been there was a major safeguarding breach.
The issue now is that in addition to letting their patients be raped that hospital trust has committed the crime of perverting the course of justice.
All in all it is a brutally clear exposition of why self identification without certain very strict safeguards (I.e. call yourself what you like but no accessing female only spaces until transition is complete) is a very bad idea.
I suspect that, sorry Ms Cyclefree, but there were a couple of 'tough' Sisters on that ward: 'What, a man on my ward! Nonsense!' And no-one argued with them.
That's an old fashioned take.
More likely, everyone in the hospital had done their TransFriendly training - therefore self identification trumps all. Anyone accusing a self-identified woman of rape, is "accusing" them of being a man. Since they aren't a man (see training) the complaint is false and transphobic.
We live in an age where everyone has been trained. Those involved in Rotherham from the official side did thousands of hours on safeguarding, protecting the interests of the child, safety cases etc etc. A number of them had post graduate degrees in child care related areas. Many of them still maintain that they were committed to the highest standards of child care. They probably believe it as well - have they not lined their walls with the finest collection of certificates for all the courses they have done?
Take the point Mr M, but then I'm an old man, and it's twenty years since I had much to do with ward sisters!
Lack of simple common sense in interpreting the rules.
Edit. And, see my earlier post, whatever is or isn't plain as a pikestaff, there's unquestionably been an assault.
I honestly don't understand what it is going on in these cases. I know the Baroness was making a point about there being a man on the ward, but that seems beside the point.
Supposedly the ward staff's sole response to the suggestion there had been a rape on the ward was that there were no men on the ward, which seems to indicate a complete lack of any cognitive function whatsoever, investigation, or any instinct to believe or listen to the victim at all.
I don't think it's particularly helpful to think of the main point being whether the assault or rape was perpetrated by a man or woman given the imbelic nature of the (apparent) response.
Doesn't make sense given that women (in all senses) can and do commit sexual assaults.
Because the very precise legal definition of a 'rape' is 'penetration by a penis.'
So the hospital were dancing on the head of a pin here: 'well, she can't have been raped, no penises to do it.' Therefore implying there was no chance of any sexual assault at all.
And the reason of course is because as @Cyclefree notes if they admitted there had been there was a major safeguarding breach.
The issue now is that in addition to letting their patients be raped that hospital trust has committed the crime of perverting the course of justice.
All in all it is a brutally clear exposition of why self identification without certain very strict safeguards (I.e. call yourself what you like but no accessing female only spaces until transition is complete) is a very bad idea.
I suspect that, sorry Ms Cyclefree, but there were a couple of 'tough' Sisters on that ward: 'What, a man on my ward! Nonsense!' And no-one argued with them.
That's an old fashioned take.
More likely, everyone in the hospital had done their TransFriendly training - therefore self identification trumps all. Anyone accusing a self-identified woman of rape, is "accusing" them of being a man. Since they aren't a man (see training) the complaint is false and transphobic.
We live in an age where everyone has been trained. Those involved in Rotherham from the official side did thousands of hours on safeguarding, protecting the interests of the child, safety cases etc etc. A number of them had post graduate degrees in child care related areas. Many of them still maintain that they were committed to the highest standards of child care. They probably believe it as well - have they not lined their walls with the finest collection of certificates for all the courses they have done?
Take the point Mr M, but then I'm an old man, and it's twenty years since I had much to do with ward sisters!
Lack of simple common sense in interpreting the rules.
I've dealt with various NHS staff more recently than that. Also various other people in large organisations - the same issues occur everywhere.
At first you think you are encountering dumb insolence or malicious compliance. Then you realise it is a combination of a complete absence of personal, discretionary, decision making and a worship of The Rules.
This pair of mental feature makes a perfect servant for a large bureaucracy. It also creates a mental structure where behaviour that is completely sociopathic is undertaken without *realising it*. The person in question is probably, in everyday life, perfectly nice to pets, small children etc. But once they get their "professional head" on, any rule will be followed. No matter the result.
Btw, if gridwatch is accurate (big 'if' I know) currently 59% of our electricity is from wind or solar, and just 8% from gas. We're even exporting substantial amounts of power to France.
Hardly surprising given it's perfect conditions, windy, warm but not too warm, and sunny, but good news nevertheless.
I'm off to the gym. See you later.
Even if the solar figure is an overestimate, the figure to concentrate on is the GW supplied by fossil fuels - currently only 2.37 GW (plus whatever portion of the interconnector supply is fossil fuels burnt in Belgium or the Netherlands).
Henri Vanhanen @HenriVanhanen Russian aggression in #Ukraine has had a decisive impact on European security. Here in the North too, the development is moving in a direction that Putin certainly did not expect: #NATO membership for Finland is on the table now.
I honestly don't understand what it is going on in these cases. I know the Baroness was making a point about there being a man on the ward, but that seems beside the point.
Supposedly the ward staff's sole response to the suggestion there had been a rape on the ward was that there were no men on the ward, which seems to indicate a complete lack of any cognitive function whatsoever, investigation, or any instinct to believe or listen to the victim at all.
I don't think it's particularly helpful to think of the main point being whether the assault or rape was perpetrated by a man or woman given the imbelic nature of the (apparent) response.
Doesn't make sense given that women (in all senses) can and do commit sexual assaults.
Because the very precise legal definition of a 'rape' is 'penetration by a penis.'
So the hospital were dancing on the head of a pin here: 'well, she can't have been raped, no penises to do it.' Therefore implying there was no chance of any sexual assault at all.
And the reason of course is because as @Cyclefree notes if they admitted there had been there was a major safeguarding breach.
The issue now is that in addition to letting their patients be raped that hospital trust has committed the crime of perverting the course of justice.
All in all it is a brutally clear exposition of why self identification without certain very strict safeguards (I.e. call yourself what you like but no accessing female only spaces until transition is complete) is a very bad idea.
I suspect that, sorry Ms Cyclefree, but there were a couple of 'tough' Sisters on that ward: 'What, a man on my ward! Nonsense!' And no-one argued with them.
That's an old fashioned take.
More likely, everyone in the hospital had done their TransFriendly training - therefore self identification trumps all. Anyone accusing a self-identified woman of rape, is "accusing" them of being a man. Since they aren't a man (see training) the complaint is false and transphobic.
We live in an age where everyone has been trained. Those involved in Rotherham from the official side did thousands of hours on safeguarding, protecting the interests of the child, safety cases etc etc. A number of them had post graduate degrees in child care related areas. Many of them still maintain that they were committed to the highest standards of child care. They probably believe it as well - have they not lined their walls with the finest collection of certificates for all the courses they have done?
Take the point Mr M, but then I'm an old man, and it's twenty years since I had much to do with ward sisters!
Lack of simple common sense in interpreting the rules.
I've dealt with various NHS staff more recently than that. Also various other people in large organisations - the same issues occur everywhere.
At first you think you are encountering dumb insolence or malicious compliance. Then you realise it is a combination of a complete absence of personal, discretionary, decision making and a worship of The Rules.
This pair of mental feature makes a perfect servant for a large bureaucracy. It also creates a mental structure where behaviour that is completely sociopathic is undertaken without *realising it*. The person in question is probably, in everyday life, perfectly nice to pets, small children etc. But once they get their "professional head" on, any rule will be followed. No matter the result.
Things haven't changed a lot in twenty years from the sound of it. I suspect, certainly in the health professions, that there's also a fear of falling foul of the Registering Authority.
Every so often I look at the decisions of that for pharmacy, and I rather suspect the current 'arms length' body sometimes takes a view which would not, thirty or so years ago have been taken by the professional body, then the disciplinary authority.
In my view this has nothing to do with arguments about the rights of women/trans women and EVERYTHING to do with how defensive institutions are about anything that could lead expose their own poor practice and failures in care. Having been involved in the process of reporting a (comparatively trivial) case of poor care and the speed with which it went from "let's find out the root cause of what happened and prevent it happening again" to "it didn't happen and no-one is admitting any liability" - even when I offered to sign NDAs or whatever was needed to give them legal reassurance that there would be no comeback.
Btw, if gridwatch is accurate (big 'if' I know) currently 59% of our electricity is from wind or solar, and just 8% from gas. We're even exporting substantial amounts of power to France.
Hardly surprising given it's perfect conditions, windy, warm but not too warm, and sunny, but good news nevertheless.
I'm off to the gym. See you later.
Even if the solar figure is an overestimate, the figure to concentrate on is the GW supplied by fossil fuels - currently only 2.37 GW (plus whatever portion of the interconnector supply is fossil fuels burnt in Belgium or the Netherlands).
The only thing I can think of is other forms of storage, such as batteries, or various experimental odds and ends.
EDIT: Storage is unlikely, because it's been at a fairly constant level for the last day or so, which means no electricity being stored overnight.
Oh, okay, so one of them is a battery - there are some batteries on the site of the former West Burton power plant, but the old Ironbridge Power Station is still included with a code under "Other", so that's a bit weird.
My great great g g g g (x 38) grandfather fought and won the Siege of Chartres in 911, after which he converted to fierce Catholicism, seized many lands west of the Seine, and married a five year old girl. That’s what war does to you.
My great great g g g g (x 38) grandfather fought and won the Siege of Chartres in 911, after which he converted to fierce Catholicism, seized many lands west of the Seine, and married a five year old girl. That’s what war does to you.
Man, I feel a bit shit now. My ebay purchase from Dnipro which I'd written off as a contribution to the struggle has turned up, better up my other contributions. Big ups to Ukrposhta though.
The issue seems to be the statement to the police “she was not raped because there were no men on the ward”. The ants wasting police time at least surely? Although why did it take a year for the truth to be discovered if it just took a review of CCTV images?
Sobering to read some of the comments on this thread about relatives' experiences - they were such an amazing generation. My own parents were lucky - my father had a desk job in intelligence (which he almost never talked about, loyal to the Official Secrets Act), my mother worked for UNRRA for refugees, and talked matter-of-factly as the worst moment being driving through Hammersmith while the buildings on both sides were on fire. Neither experienced any harm at all.
On a more cheerful note, it's always fun to argue about lists, and here's the happiness list, with FINLAND winning again. Makes sense!
F1: Mercedes look to have improved, perhaps not enough to compete for pole, but we shall soon see. Qualifying is at 3pm. I'll put up the pre-qualifying tosh once the markets on Ladbrokes re-emerge.
My great great g g g g (x 38) grandfather fought and won the Siege of Chartres in 911, after which he converted to fierce Catholicism, seized many lands west of the Seine, and married a five year old girl. That’s what war does to you.
I think you meant to post that under your @Charles account
My mother was at the younger end of a large family, so most of my maternal cousins are older than I, and several of them served in WWII. It was discovered some time after the war that one, in the WRNS, had sent the signal which sent another, a Commando, ashore at Walcheren Island on the Dutch coast in November 1944.
My grandfather was serving in the marines and died in November 1944 at Walcheren. A lot of people died in that operation.
Sobering to read some of the comments on this thread about relatives' experiences - they were such an amazing generation. My own parents were lucky - my father had a desk job in intelligence (which he almost never talked about, loyal to the Official Secrets Act), my mother worked for UNRRA for refugees, and talked matter-of-factly as the worst moment being driving through Hammersmith while the buildings on both sides were on fire. Neither experienced any harm at all.
On a more cheerful note, it's always fun to argue about lists, and here's the happiness list, with FINLAND winning again. Makes sense!
Finland, Finland, Finland The country where I quite want to be Your mountains so lofty Your treetops so tall Finland, Finland, Finland Finland has it all
Finland’s not really mountainous.
That reminds me of how Norway tried, but failed, to gift Finland a mountaintop close to their mutual border, for Finland’s 100th anniversary, that would have become the highest point in Finland. Such an imaginative gift.
Comments
Patrick Reevell
@Reevellp
Crazy scene. People in a Russian supermarket frantically scuffling for bags of sugar amid worries of shortages because of the war in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/Reevellp/status/1505124192848650241
Presumably the shutting down of lucrative RT gigs has sent him tonto.
Which is conviction and punishment of the offender.
More likely, everyone in the hospital had done their TransFriendly training - therefore self identification trumps all. Anyone accusing a self-identified woman of rape, is "accusing" them of being a man. Since they aren't a man (see training) the complaint is false and transphobic.
We live in an age where everyone has been trained. Those involved in Rotherham from the official side did thousands of hours on safeguarding, protecting the interests of the child, safety cases etc etc. A number of them had post graduate degrees in child care related areas. Many of them still maintain that they were committed to the highest standards of child care. They probably believe it as well - have they not lined their walls with the finest collection of certificates for all the courses they have done?
Oh God no
For The Greater Good.
Hardly surprising given it's perfect conditions, windy, warm but not too warm, and sunny, but good news nevertheless.
I'm off to the gym. See you later.
Lack of simple common sense in interpreting the rules.
Edit. And, see my earlier post, whatever is or isn't plain as a pikestaff, there's unquestionably been an assault.
At first you think you are encountering dumb insolence or malicious compliance. Then you realise it is a combination of a complete absence of personal, discretionary, decision making and a worship of The Rules.
This pair of mental feature makes a perfect servant for a large bureaucracy. It also creates a mental structure where behaviour that is completely sociopathic is undertaken without *realising it*. The person in question is probably, in everyday life, perfectly nice to pets, small children etc. But once they get their "professional head" on, any rule will be followed. No matter the result.
Anyone know what the 150 MW currently being supplied by "Other" is?
The only thing I can think of is other forms of storage, such as batteries, or various experimental odds and ends.
EDIT: Storage is unlikely, because it's been at a fairly constant level for the last day or so, which means no electricity being stored overnight.
Henri Vanhanen
@HenriVanhanen
Russian aggression in #Ukraine has had a decisive impact on European security. Here in the North too, the development is moving in a direction that Putin certainly did not expect: #NATO membership for Finland is on the table now.
A thread about 🇫🇮 and NATO.
https://twitter.com/HenriVanhanen/status/1505115738922758147
Every so often I look at the decisions of that for pharmacy, and I rather suspect the current 'arms length' body sometimes takes a view which would not, thirty or so years ago have been taken by the professional body, then the disciplinary authority.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Finland’s not really mountainous.
That reminds me of how Norway tried, but failed, to gift Finland a mountaintop close to their mutual border, for Finland’s 100th anniversary, that would have become the highest point in Finland. Such an imaginative gift.