Anyone know why December 2024 is 10/1 (with Skybet) for month of the general election?
Kinda seems like an obvious date in the running - five years from the last election, late, but not have a campaign over Christmas late.
I can see that there are reasonably decent arguments for other months, but 10/1 seems very long for what wouldn't be an absurd choice.
June, for example, would be an absurd choice of month for the GE. The election would have to be called either shortly before the local elections, or within a couple of weeks following.
Anyone know why December 2024 is 10/1 (with Skybet) for month of the general election?
Kinda seems like an obvious date in the running - five years from the last election, late, but not have a campaign over Christmas late.
I can see that there are reasonably decent arguments for other months, but 10/1 seems very long for what wouldn't be an absurd choice.
How does Rishi even get to December?
I am legitimately baffled the summer isn’t odds on. I mean, Rishi basically has to call an election when he loses in May right?
Inertia gets Sunak to December.
When has any PM ever reacted to a bad election result by saying, "I know, I'll lose my job by following this awful election result with a general election."
Off topic: Here's hoping Cyclefree's "Victory Garden" does very well this year. (And that others in the UK, with similar gardens, also have good results.)
Anyone know why December 2024 is 10/1 (with Skybet) for month of the general election?
Kinda seems like an obvious date in the running - five years from the last election, late, but not have a campaign over Christmas late.
I can see that there are reasonably decent arguments for other months, but 10/1 seems very long for what wouldn't be an absurd choice.
How does Rishi even get to December?
I am legitimately baffled the summer isn’t odds on. I mean, Rishi basically has to call an election when he loses in May right?
Inertia gets Sunak to December.
When has any PM ever reacted to a bad election result by saying, "I know, I'll lose my job by following this awful election result with a general election."
It's not going to happen.
If he’s going to get sacked which I think he will, he surely has no choice?
Anyone know why December 2024 is 10/1 (with Skybet) for month of the general election?
Kinda seems like an obvious date in the running - five years from the last election, late, but not have a campaign over Christmas late.
I can see that there are reasonably decent arguments for other months, but 10/1 seems very long for what wouldn't be an absurd choice.
How does Rishi even get to December?
I am legitimately baffled the summer isn’t odds on. I mean, Rishi basically has to call an election when he loses in May right?
Inertia gets Sunak to December.
When has any PM ever reacted to a bad election result by saying, "I know, I'll lose my job by following this awful election result with a general election."
It's not going to happen.
If he’s going to get sacked which I think he will, he surely has no choice?
Boris Johnson tried to threaten rebels with a general election. What choice did he make?
I don't find the idea that a PM can, or would, forestall an attempt to replace them by calling a GE remotely credible.
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
I would use butter in the recipe AND put butter on the scone (what else does one put under the jam and clotted cream??).
I put a scone under it
There are very few things in life that can't be made better using a copious amount of butter.
Scones however are one of them, I am not opposed to butter. Its great on potato's and a lot of things like toast and crumpets....scones with clotted cream and jam don't get enhanced by butter though
It's IN the scone recipe, not ON the scone.
We already established we were talking about it being spread on the scone not in the scone recipe
Look, I get that it doesn't *need* butter on it as well as the clotted cream, but if someone's going to give me some butter, it's clearly going on the scone. I'll admit to putting too much topping on the scone when becomes top heavy and falls over.
I know we have our differences - but I too have on occasion had butter along with jam & cream on scones. And why wouldn’t you ?
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
Off topic: Here's hoping Cyclefree's "Victory Garden" does very well this year. (And that others in the UK, with similar gardens, also have good results.)
In your view, are potatoes legit for planting in vegetable gardens? AND what about (uncandied) yams?
Anyone know why December 2024 is 10/1 (with Skybet) for month of the general election?
Kinda seems like an obvious date in the running - five years from the last election, late, but not have a campaign over Christmas late.
I can see that there are reasonably decent arguments for other months, but 10/1 seems very long for what wouldn't be an absurd choice.
How does Rishi even get to December?
I am legitimately baffled the summer isn’t odds on. I mean, Rishi basically has to call an election when he loses in May right?
Inertia gets Sunak to December.
When has any PM ever reacted to a bad election result by saying, "I know, I'll lose my job by following this awful election result with a general election."
It's not going to happen.
If he’s going to get sacked which I think he will, he surely has no choice?
It's quite a jump from the 15% to trigger a VONC to the 50% to win it. Especially when quite a lot of Conservative MPs will fear that Sunak's replacement will be even worse.
That's why the customary procedure is for the incumbent to win the VONC but be weakened enough to fall over a few months to a year later. That should be enough to let Rishi stagger on into the autumn.
Whereas calling a GE means almost instant, almost certain, doom.
Courthouse News Service - Washington state legislative maps survive Supreme Court appeal in latest battle over Latino voting rights
The high court rejected an emergency appeal from Republicans seeking to revert to a map that was declared unlawful.
The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to block the use of Washington state’s new legislative district maps that give Latino voters greater representation.
A Republican lawmaker and two voters asked the justices to allow the state’s 2024 election to move forward under a map that was found to have violated a section of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits race discrimination. A lower court judge recently enacted a remedial map after claims of Latino vote dilution, but the Republicans say the new map is more discriminatory than the first. . . .
The court did not explain its denial of the emergency application. There were no noted dissents.
In 2022, voting rights groups claimed in a lawsuit that legislative maps redrawn after the 2020 census intentionally split Latino voters into several districts in the Yakima Valley region. The groups said the redistricting commission created a “facade Latino opportunity district” but in fact diluted Latino voting power. . . .
Washington state initially fought back against the voting rights groups' case but later conceded that the claims, filed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, were valid.
A federal court ordered new maps to be drawn. The state Legislature turned down an opportunity to enact a new map so the court asked the parties in the lawsuit to propose new versions. The court then adopted the map proposed by the voting rights groups, prompting the three Republican voters' appeal to the Supreme Court to block the use of that map.
The justices had already declined an opportunity to intervene prior to the map’s enactment. . . .
The Supreme Court's order allows the state to conduct its 2024 elections under the remedial legislative map.
SSI - Perhaps PBers will NOT be surprised, that IMHO the lawyers & expert witnesses for the Latino plaintiffs, were WAY better in preparing & arguing THEIR side, than the attorneys & witnesses for the GOP did for their side.
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Personally I don't really see the issue even with that? If they need to provide coverage to that area, what else are they to do?
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Personally I don't really see the issue even with that? If they need to provide coverage to that area, what else are they to do?
What about one on the top of Westminster Abbey? Stonehenge?
The problem with anti-NIMBYism is you take everything way too far. A more palatable position would be to advocate for much stronger protections for things like Edinburgh Castle, National Parks etc, but much looser ones outside those specific areas.
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Personally I don't really see the issue even with that? If they need to provide coverage to that area, what else are they to do?
What about one on the top of Westminster Abbey? Stonehenge?
The problem with anti-NIMBYism is you take everything way too far. A more palatable position would be to advocate for much stronger protections for things like Edinburgh Castle, National Parks etc, but much looser ones outside those specific areas.
Here's an example - the A9, Highland Main Line and the Beauly-Denny powerline run over the Drumochter Pass in the Cairngorms National Park. The construction of the powerline has trashed the ground and no effort has been made by SSE to restore it, despite the planning permission being conditional on that restoration.
I don't really care. I would remove National Park status from the entire corridor and apply it instead to Torridon, Assynt, the Outer Hebrides etc. These are areas of outstanding beauty and/or environmental value, in complete contrast to the Drumochter Pass which devalues the whole idea of National Parks.
Off topic: Here's hoping Cyclefree's "Victory Garden" does very well this year. (And that others in the UK, with similar gardens, also have good results.)
In your view, are potatoes legit for planting in vegetable gardens? AND what about (uncandied) yams?
Potatoes are a very good way of improving the soil. Also delicious to eat. And just the thing for a veg garden.
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Personally I don't really see the issue even with that? If they need to provide coverage to that area, what else are they to do?
What about one on the top of Westminster Abbey? Stonehenge?
The problem with anti-NIMBYism is you take everything way too far. A more palatable position would be to advocate for much stronger protections for things like Edinburgh Castle, National Parks etc, but much looser ones outside those specific areas.
Well, do you think we should provide coverage to Westminster Abbey and Stonehenge? I do, I think we should provide coverage everywhere.
Your suggestion will create inevitable coverage gaps. The issue with the one at Edinburgh Castle, it wasn't going on Edinburgh Castle, wasn't it just going next to it?
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
And politicians are incentivised to listen to them. It can be pretty pathetic when they have to pretend to be opposed to something for legitimate planning reasons, when the loud voices opposes are clearly of the 5G conspiracy type or something. It also undermines the many legitimate reasons for development objections, but making it seem the same as the loony crowd.
Frankly we're lucky we get what we do, with nimbyism so popular, developers taking the piss whenever you take your eye off them for 5 seconds, all overseen by inept politicians continually tweaking things in confusing, contradictory ways for overworked officials to try to manage as best they can.
Sure. Although you want to trim any green patches that develop on them, as those patches are midlly poisonous. (Ordinarily the patches don't develop, as long as the potatoes are completely covered with dirt.)
And, since, like bananas, potaoes are high in potassium, they are also a little more radioactive than most other foods.
(When I did have a garden, I didn't bother growing potatoes, since they are so cheap, but devoted the space to basil, peas, tomatoes, strawberries, and similar crops. Similarly, I don't recall my family growing potatoes on the farm where I grew up.)
Courthouse News Service - Washington state legislative maps survive Supreme Court appeal in latest battle over Latino voting rights
The high court rejected an emergency appeal from Republicans seeking to revert to a map that was declared unlawful.
The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to block the use of Washington state’s new legislative district maps that give Latino voters greater representation.
A Republican lawmaker and two voters asked the justices to allow the state’s 2024 election to move forward under a map that was found to have violated a section of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits race discrimination. A lower court judge recently enacted a remedial map after claims of Latino vote dilution, but the Republicans say the new map is more discriminatory than the first. . . .
The court did not explain its denial of the emergency application. There were no noted dissents.
In 2022, voting rights groups claimed in a lawsuit that legislative maps redrawn after the 2020 census intentionally split Latino voters into several districts in the Yakima Valley region. The groups said the redistricting commission created a “facade Latino opportunity district” but in fact diluted Latino voting power. . . .
Washington state initially fought back against the voting rights groups' case but later conceded that the claims, filed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, were valid.
A federal court ordered new maps to be drawn. The state Legislature turned down an opportunity to enact a new map so the court asked the parties in the lawsuit to propose new versions. The court then adopted the map proposed by the voting rights groups, prompting the three Republican voters' appeal to the Supreme Court to block the use of that map.
The justices had already declined an opportunity to intervene prior to the map’s enactment. . . .
The Supreme Court's order allows the state to conduct its 2024 elections under the remedial legislative map.
SSI - Perhaps PBers will NOT be surprised, that IMHO the lawyers & expert witnesses for the Latino plaintiffs, were WAY better in preparing & arguing THEIR side, than the attorneys & witnesses for the GOP did for their side.
Leaving aside all the other issues, why do people get so many opportunities to relitigate these issues in the first place? Even after appeals and supreme court decisions it seems like the losing sides get more goes. It's like with various criminal cases with endless motions and appeals of decisions, and interlocutary appeals (usually if you are powerful enough) and so on and so on.
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Personally I don't really see the issue even with that? If they need to provide coverage to that area, what else are they to do?
What about one on the top of Westminster Abbey? Stonehenge?
The problem with anti-NIMBYism is you take everything way too far. A more palatable position would be to advocate for much stronger protections for things like Edinburgh Castle, National Parks etc, but much looser ones outside those specific areas.
Well, do you think we should provide coverage to Westminster Abbey and Stonehenge? I do, I think we should provide coverage everywhere.
Your suggestion will create inevitable coverage gaps. The issue with the one at Edinburgh Castle, it wasn't going on Edinburgh Castle, wasn't it just going next to it?
When you say "coverage", you mean "cancer", right?
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Personally I don't really see the issue even with that? If they need to provide coverage to that area, what else are they to do?
What about one on the top of Westminster Abbey? Stonehenge?
The problem with anti-NIMBYism is you take everything way too far. A more palatable position would be to advocate for much stronger protections for things like Edinburgh Castle, National Parks etc, but much looser ones outside those specific areas.
Well, do you think we should provide coverage to Westminster Abbey and Stonehenge? I do, I think we should provide coverage everywhere.
Your suggestion will create inevitable coverage gaps. The issue with the one at Edinburgh Castle, it wasn't going on Edinburgh Castle, wasn't it just going next to it?
The iconic view of the castle looming above the Grassmarket would be disrupted.
What you forget is that there is a value in the UK's cultural and natural heritage. You just can't see it on a spreadsheet. So, it will cost the telecoms companies more to provide 5G coverage around Stonehenge. But that additional cost will be much smaller than the value lost by plonking a mast right next to it.
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Personally I don't really see the issue even with that? If they need to provide coverage to that area, what else are they to do?
What about one on the top of Westminster Abbey? Stonehenge?
The problem with anti-NIMBYism is you take everything way too far. A more palatable position would be to advocate for much stronger protections for things like Edinburgh Castle, National Parks etc, but much looser ones outside those specific areas.
Well, do you think we should provide coverage to Westminster Abbey and Stonehenge? I do, I think we should provide coverage everywhere.
Your suggestion will create inevitable coverage gaps. The issue with the one at Edinburgh Castle, it wasn't going on Edinburgh Castle, wasn't it just going next to it?
The iconic view of the castle looming above the Grassmarket would be disrupted.
What you forget is that there is a value in the UK's cultural and natural heritage. You just can't see it on a spreadsheet. So, it will cost the telecoms companies more to provide 5G coverage around Stonehenge. But that additional cost will be much smaller than the value lost by plonking a mast right next to it.
But what if they physically cannot provide coverage without getting close? The reason they will have gone so close to Edinburgh Castle is because of building construction.
Stonehenge is superfluous, the MNOs already provide coverage there.
An application to provide coverage around Tooting Bec Common for Cornerstone has been rejected for "visual pollution" reasons. This is batty. It's a city.
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Personally I don't really see the issue even with that? If they need to provide coverage to that area, what else are they to do?
What about one on the top of Westminster Abbey? Stonehenge?
The problem with anti-NIMBYism is you take everything way too far. A more palatable position would be to advocate for much stronger protections for things like Edinburgh Castle, National Parks etc, but much looser ones outside those specific areas.
Well, do you think we should provide coverage to Westminster Abbey and Stonehenge? I do, I think we should provide coverage everywhere.
Your suggestion will create inevitable coverage gaps. The issue with the one at Edinburgh Castle, it wasn't going on Edinburgh Castle, wasn't it just going next to it?
The iconic view of the castle looming above the Grassmarket would be disrupted.
What you forget is that there is a value in the UK's cultural and natural heritage. You just can't see it on a spreadsheet. So, it will cost the telecoms companies more to provide 5G coverage around Stonehenge. But that additional cost will be much smaller than the value lost by plonking a mast right next to it.
But what if they physically cannot provide coverage without getting close? The reason they will have gone so close to Edinburgh Castle is because of building construction.
Stonehenge is superfluous, the MNOs already provide coverage there.
An application to provide coverage around Tooting Bec Common for Cornerstone has been rejected for "visual pollution" reasons. This is batty. It's a city.
Of course you can. Or you find a way to conceal it. This costs money but that's something I'm sure the residents and tourists of Edinburgh are willing to pay to preserve one of the reasons why you'd visit Edinburgh over say Milton Keynes.
I don't know anything about Tooting but I would guess they are trying to avoid putting telecoms infrastructure in the middle of one of the few green spaces in that part of London?
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Personally I don't really see the issue even with that? If they need to provide coverage to that area, what else are they to do?
What about one on the top of Westminster Abbey? Stonehenge?
The problem with anti-NIMBYism is you take everything way too far. A more palatable position would be to advocate for much stronger protections for things like Edinburgh Castle, National Parks etc, but much looser ones outside those specific areas.
Well, do you think we should provide coverage to Westminster Abbey and Stonehenge? I do, I think we should provide coverage everywhere.
Your suggestion will create inevitable coverage gaps. The issue with the one at Edinburgh Castle, it wasn't going on Edinburgh Castle, wasn't it just going next to it?
The iconic view of the castle looming above the Grassmarket would be disrupted.
What you forget is that there is a value in the UK's cultural and natural heritage. You just can't see it on a spreadsheet. So, it will cost the telecoms companies more to provide 5G coverage around Stonehenge. But that additional cost will be much smaller than the value lost by plonking a mast right next to it.
But what if they physically cannot provide coverage without getting close? The reason they will have gone so close to Edinburgh Castle is because of building construction.
Stonehenge is superfluous, the MNOs already provide coverage there.
An application to provide coverage around Tooting Bec Common for Cornerstone has been rejected for "visual pollution" reasons. This is batty. It's a city.
Of course you can. Or you find a way to conceal it. This costs money but that's something I'm sure the residents and tourists of Edinburgh are willing to pay to preserve one of the reasons why you'd visit Edinburgh over say Milton Keynes.
I don't know anything about Tooting but I would guess they are trying to avoid putting telecoms infrastructure in the middle of one of the few green spaces in that part of London?
In a maintenance depot! They're not plumping it in the green space, it's literally an area built up with concrete, what is there to maintain!
How do you propose to conceal a mast which by its nature has to provide coverage? It's not as straightforward as you are suggesting.
Why does a green space preclude telecoms infrastructure?
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
An idea - create a conspiracy theory about the masts so insane that it embarrasses the objectors.
Given the experience of the last few years, is that possible?
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
The problem seems to be that councils are indulging these people. The government really should just not allow objections for any reason beyond actual health like it’s going to fall down or something. Can somebody explain why I am wrong?
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
They did try and stick one in front of Edinburgh Castle. I think it's fair to object to that one.
Personally I don't really see the issue even with that? If they need to provide coverage to that area, what else are they to do?
What about one on the top of Westminster Abbey? Stonehenge?
The problem with anti-NIMBYism is you take everything way too far. A more palatable position would be to advocate for much stronger protections for things like Edinburgh Castle, National Parks etc, but much looser ones outside those specific areas.
Well, do you think we should provide coverage to Westminster Abbey and Stonehenge? I do, I think we should provide coverage everywhere.
Your suggestion will create inevitable coverage gaps. The issue with the one at Edinburgh Castle, it wasn't going on Edinburgh Castle, wasn't it just going next to it?
The iconic view of the castle looming above the Grassmarket would be disrupted.
What you forget is that there is a value in the UK's cultural and natural heritage. You just can't see it on a spreadsheet. So, it will cost the telecoms companies more to provide 5G coverage around Stonehenge. But that additional cost will be much smaller than the value lost by plonking a mast right next to it.
But what if they physically cannot provide coverage without getting close? The reason they will have gone so close to Edinburgh Castle is because of building construction.
Stonehenge is superfluous, the MNOs already provide coverage there.
An application to provide coverage around Tooting Bec Common for Cornerstone has been rejected for "visual pollution" reasons. This is batty. It's a city.
Of course you can. Or you find a way to conceal it. This costs money but that's something I'm sure the residents and tourists of Edinburgh are willing to pay to preserve one of the reasons why you'd visit Edinburgh over say Milton Keynes.
I don't know anything about Tooting but I would guess they are trying to avoid putting telecoms infrastructure in the middle of one of the few green spaces in that part of London?
In a maintenance depot! They're not plumping it in the green space, it's literally an area built up with concrete, what is there to maintain!
How do you propose to conceal a mast which by its nature has to provide coverage? It's not as straightforward as you are suggesting.
Why does a green space preclude telecoms infrastructure?
Right, but the mast is popping up above all that. Oddly, I have more sympathy with city centre NIMBYism because spots like that are so rare and shared by so many people.
Sure. Although you want to trim any green patches that develop on them, as those patches are midlly poisonous. (Ordinarily the patches don't develop, as long as the potatoes are completely covered with dirt.)
And, since, like bananas, potaoes are high in potassium, they are also a little more radioactive than most other foods.
(When I did have a garden, I didn't bother growing potatoes, since they are so cheap, but devoted the space to basil, peas, tomatoes, strawberries, and similar crops. Similarly, I don't recall my family growing potatoes on the farm where I grew up.)
Thank you for joining the Bi-Partisan Potato Defense League.
No doubt your check is in the mail . . . or perhaps the soil . . .
Right, but the mast is popping up above all that. Oddly, I have more sympathy with city centre NIMBYism because spots like that are so rare and shared by so many people.
Then these areas will not have mobile coverage and continue to provide a poor service to users. I feel that unacceptable in 2024 and based on the photo above, the mast was barely even visible.
With respect to last week's arrest of Jeffrey Donaldson MP on "historical" sex abuse charges, the blog "Slugger O'Toole" reports that Irish journos have dubbed it "the Good Friday Arraignment".
Remarkably little damage for an earthquake if that magnitude, according to early reports.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=371973 ...The Taipei city government has not received any reports of damage and the city's MRT was up and running soon after, while electricity operator Taipower said more than 87,000 households in Taiwan were still without power.
Taiwan's high speed rail operator said no damage or injuries were reported on its trains, but noted trains will be delayed while it carries out inspections.
Southern Taiwan Science Park, where semiconductor giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co has a plant, said companies were operating without impact.
TSMC said its safety systems are operating normally...
Anyone know why December 2024 is 10/1 (with Skybet) for month of the general election?
Kinda seems like an obvious date in the running - five years from the last election, late, but not have a campaign over Christmas late.
I can see that there are reasonably decent arguments for other months, but 10/1 seems very long for what wouldn't be an absurd choice.
June, for example, would be an absurd choice of month for the GE. The election would have to be called either shortly before the local elections, or within a couple of weeks following.
And yet June is also 10/1.
Mrs T used to like getting the locals out the way to see the lie of the land, and then call a general quickly after?
Comments
And yet June is also 10/1.
When has any PM ever reacted to a bad election result by saying, "I know, I'll lose my job by following this awful election result with a general election."
It's not going to happen.
“Government control”, “5G causes cancer”, “will destroy the environment”, “devalue houses”.
Planning reform is desperately needed to stop these nutjobs.
I don't find the idea that a PM can, or would, forestall an attempt to replace them by calling a GE remotely credible.
(I think there's a psychological theory that, beyond a certain point, the more bonkers a theory is, the harder it is to persuade people out of it. Because they know they will look like complete chumps if they change their mind. See also the physics aphorism that progress happens one professional funeral at a time.)
In the middle of London, a cell site on a tower block, what on Earth could you have to object about?
That's why the customary procedure is for the incumbent to win the VONC but be weakened enough to fall over a few months to a year later. That should be enough to let Rishi stagger on into the autumn.
Whereas calling a GE means almost instant, almost certain, doom.
The high court rejected an emergency appeal from Republicans seeking to revert to a map that was declared unlawful.
The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to block the use of Washington state’s new legislative district maps that give Latino voters greater representation.
A Republican lawmaker and two voters asked the justices to allow the state’s 2024 election to move forward under a map that was found to have violated a section of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits race discrimination. A lower court judge recently enacted a remedial map after claims of Latino vote dilution, but the Republicans say the new map is more discriminatory than the first. . . .
The court did not explain its denial of the emergency application. There were no noted dissents.
In 2022, voting rights groups claimed in a lawsuit that legislative maps redrawn after the 2020 census intentionally split Latino voters into several districts in the Yakima Valley region. The groups said the redistricting commission created a “facade Latino opportunity district” but in fact diluted Latino voting power. . . .
Washington state initially fought back against the voting rights groups' case but later conceded that the claims, filed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, were valid.
A federal court ordered new maps to be drawn. The state Legislature turned down an opportunity to enact a new map so the court asked the parties in the lawsuit to propose new versions. The court then adopted the map proposed by the voting rights groups, prompting the three Republican voters' appeal to the Supreme Court to block the use of that map.
The justices had already declined an opportunity to intervene prior to the map’s enactment. . . .
The Supreme Court's order allows the state to conduct its 2024 elections under the remedial legislative map.
SSI - Perhaps PBers will NOT be surprised, that IMHO the lawyers & expert witnesses for the Latino plaintiffs, were WAY better in preparing & arguing THEIR side, than the attorneys & witnesses for the GOP did for their side.
(Perhaps not insane enough)
The problem with anti-NIMBYism is you take everything way too far. A more palatable position would be to advocate for much stronger protections for things like Edinburgh Castle, National Parks etc, but much looser ones outside those specific areas.
I don't really care. I would remove National Park status from the entire corridor and apply it instead to Torridon, Assynt, the Outer Hebrides etc. These are areas of outstanding beauty and/or environmental value, in complete contrast to the Drumochter Pass which devalues the whole idea of National Parks.
Your suggestion will create inevitable coverage gaps. The issue with the one at Edinburgh Castle, it wasn't going on Edinburgh Castle, wasn't it just going next to it?
Frankly we're lucky we get what we do, with nimbyism so popular, developers taking the piss whenever you take your eye off them for 5 seconds, all overseen by inept politicians continually tweaking things in confusing, contradictory ways for overworked officials to try to manage as best they can.
Sure. Although you want to trim any green patches that develop on them, as those patches are midlly poisonous. (Ordinarily the patches don't develop, as long as the potatoes are completely covered with dirt.)
And, since, like bananas, potaoes are high in potassium, they are also a little more radioactive than most other foods.
(When I did have a garden, I didn't bother growing potatoes, since they are so cheap, but devoted the space to basil, peas, tomatoes, strawberries, and similar crops. Similarly, I don't recall my family growing potatoes on the farm where I grew up.)
What you forget is that there is a value in the UK's cultural and natural heritage. You just can't see it on a spreadsheet. So, it will cost the telecoms companies more to provide 5G coverage around Stonehenge. But that additional cost will be much smaller than the value lost by plonking a mast right next to it.
Stonehenge is superfluous, the MNOs already provide coverage there.
An application to provide coverage around Tooting Bec Common for Cornerstone has been rejected for "visual pollution" reasons. This is batty. It's a city.
(as an example)
I don't know anything about Tooting but I would guess they are trying to avoid putting telecoms infrastructure in the middle of one of the few green spaces in that part of London?
How do you propose to conceal a mast which by its nature has to provide coverage? It's not as straightforward as you are suggesting.
Why does a green space preclude telecoms infrastructure?
How despicable to see a slimline telegraph pole in the distance in London, just ruining the landscape. Not.
No doubt your check is in the mail . . . or perhaps the soil . . .
Largest for many years.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=371973
...The Taipei city government has not received any reports of damage and the city's MRT was up and running soon after, while electricity operator Taipower said more than 87,000 households in Taiwan were still without power.
Taiwan's high speed rail operator said no damage or injuries were reported on its trains, but noted trains will be delayed while it carries out inspections.
Southern Taiwan Science Park, where semiconductor giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co has a plant, said companies were operating without impact.
TSMC said its safety systems are operating normally...