24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
If people are bored, they are by definition not scared. Job done.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
The roads around here were getting better, in terms of the whole car thing.
The problem with the furious cyclists (and their brethren the furious ebikers) is that they are using infrastructure for pedestrians (pavements) and for more traditional cyclists (the increasing number of segregated cycle lanes).
If you are in a moderately narrow, segregated cycle lane, say, cruising along at 10mph, and someone is coming towards you at 25mph that is really not an enjoyable experience. When you add in the weight of the ebikes, and the very large boxes the delivery guys add on... You are being approached by an aggressive moped rider, in reality.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
You are forgetting the left green vote - while, often, such people generally support "building more houses", they almost always object to every single actual development.
Very common to see a coalition of NIMBYism protesting to the council etc.
So that's more people Starmer doesn't want to scare.
The question is can he sustain this.
He wants to build more houses in the South but wont announce where for fear of upsetting the locals. But by this stage if he is going to deliver on his target he will need to know where the building sites are. If he palms it all off to a review if in government, he'll build nothing.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
The roads around here were getting better, in terms of the whole car thing.
The problem with the furious cyclists (and their brethren the furious ebikers) is that they are using infrastructure for pedestrians (pavements) and for more traditional cyclists (the increasing number of segregated cycle lanes).
If you are in a moderately narrow, segregated cycle lane, say, cruising along at 10mph, and someone is coming towards you at 25mph that is really not an enjoyable experience. When you add in the weight of the ebikes, and the very large boxes the delivery guys add on... You are being approached by an aggressive moped rider, in reality.
A lot of the electric bikes the delivery riders are using should really be classified as mopeds, meaning that the riders need insurance, wear a helmet, and stick to the roads.
A lot of the Chinese stuff comes with an easy way to modify them to remove all restrictions, usually by a method as simple as cutting a wire loop.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
Things that kill more people a year than cyclists:
Cows Lightning Mobility scooters (I think - still trying to dig through the data)
The war on cyclists has no rational basis; it's purely to terrify a few more fearful souls into voting Conservative.
I don't think it's a co-ordinated effort with a purpose. I think it's just that some people find cyclists irritating.
I find the slow drivers who can't keep on the right (left) side of the road more annoying, (but cyclists and cars simply do not mix well on the same roads).
I used to laugh at the "links fahren" signs in the area - not many foreigners flying into Bantry aerodrome and hiring cars I guffawed. I now realise they're for the resident population.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
Every time Kamala appears on TV the Dem polling falls, she’s a huge drag on the ticket.
Biden would have been much better off picking someone more popular, who would either be in a position to take over this year or give the impression of being able to to take over if Biden’s health deteriorates further.
But he picked the black woman, primarily because she was a black woman.
TBF he also went for someone who wasn't going to bollocks it up, and she didn't bollocks it up. There were other potential picks who were also black women, but they weren't as provably sure-footed as Kamala is. She's not charismatic, but she can deliver the lines she's given and she doesn't gaffe.
The idea Harris is very unpopular is not reflected in the betting. If you look at the relative prices, POTUS vs Dem Nominee, they imply she'd be an odds-on fav in November if she were the pick.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
If people are bored, they are by definition not scared. Job done.
I agree with you on that, the fun starts post election when people start to think I didnt vote for that as he has tried to be all things to all people. Given his prefernce for changing course when faced with a problem this could get very messy.
Congratulations to Rishi Sunak and Akshata Murty who are today ranked as being richer than the King, according to the Sunday Times rich list. Some good news in these tough times!
That's an amazing stat. I wonder if it counts private pensions somehow, or if it's almost entirely house prices?
The other thing to bear in mind with that is that pensioners will be disproportionately wealthy, because all the poor pensioners will be dead, given the wide disparities in life expectancy.
IMHO it’s (sometimes literally) shit like this that convinces me that no improvement in the economy or stopping any number of small boat crossings will help the Tories. There is a drip (geddit?) of stories every day about how basic public services are not working properly. The basics, water, postal services, courts…there’s a palpable sense of decline. I live 10 miles from the Kent coast and have never seen a migrant off a small boat but my village no longer has a bus service and we’ve had weeks without broadband in the last 12 months.
Water is going to be another headache for the incoming government. One, perhaps two water companies are likely to go under during their first year, and the argument over what to do about it will tie up time and political capital.
As a working class Yorkshireman I have to say I loved all the oik chat on the last thread.
My experience of Oxford was that public school toffs went round like they owned the place, comprehensively educated Northerners could set themselves up as working class heroes, and both found common ground in despising southern grammar school, or grammar school adjacent, types like me. It also explains the hate for SKS on here
My son's friends seem mildly surprised that he actually has a house with running water and power. Their understanding of Scotland is remarkably incomplete. But he is loving his time there. So much so that right now a life in academia looks highly attractive to him.
I struggled through university basically because I was at the wrong one. I did the Oxford entrance as my best friend was doing it and was as surprised as anyone when I got in. I was an dysthymic antelope in a university full of self-confident hyenas (including Liz Truss and Sian Berry at the time). However, two and a half decades later, I went back to Birkbeck and it went so swimmingly that I’m thinking of doing a doctorate.
"...I was an dysthymic antelope in a university full of self-confident hyenas..."
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
The stress of moving cannot be underestimated, particularly for older people. The system has become more complicated in recent years, not less, and less personal. Estate agents and solicitors don’t really want to speak to you anymore, they want you to use their new fangled apps. Younger folks can struggle by with that, someone approaching, or in, retirement finds it much harder.
Downsizing as a retiree also can bring with it some bittersweet feelings as it’s an acknowledgment that maybe the big house is too big for them now and that they are approaching twilight years.
And it seems these days you usually end up wiring the completion money to a fraudster
Always, always, use a solicitor to wire the money, never, ever, be the person to give them the recipient’s bank details, and always confirm either in person or by calling them on the number you have for them, on the day of completion.
IMHO it’s (sometimes literally) shit like this that convinces me that no improvement in the economy or stopping any number of small boat crossings will help the Tories. There is a drip (geddit?) of stories every day about how basic public services are not working properly. The basics, water, postal services, courts…there’s a palpable sense of decline. I live 10 miles from the Kent coast and have never seen a migrant off a small boat but my village no longer has a bus service and we’ve had weeks without broadband in the last 12 months.
Water is going to be another headache for the incoming government. One, perhaps two water companies are likely to go under during their first year, and the argument over what to do about it will tie up time and political capital.
Yes, but all the water cos need a good kicking and Ofwat just needs a total change of management.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
The stress of moving cannot be underestimated, particularly for older people. The system has become more complicated in recent years, not less, and less personal. Estate agents and solicitors don’t really want to speak to you anymore, they want you to use their new fangled apps. Younger folks can struggle by with that, someone approaching, or in, retirement finds it much harder.
Downsizing as a retiree also can bring with it some bittersweet feelings as it’s an acknowledgment that maybe the big house is too big for them now and that they are approaching twilight years.
I last moved house 20 years ago (yes I get inertia too, although I did consider moving at one point but reckoned moving from a 2 bed flat to a 2 bed house would cost me a lot of money and not gain me anything).
My experience with estate agents was dire. I was just moving 30 miles from London to Hampshire but it might as have been the dark side of the moon. By then many of the estate agents were national chains, but could you walk into an estate agent in New Malden and buy a house anywhere in the country? No. Sometimes I had to deal with different branches of the same agency in Fleet and Farnborough 4 miles apart. They didn't understand what I wanted (no I don't want a 3 bedroom house, yes it's cheap but that's because it's next to the M3) and they didn't understand what commuting to London meant (I think it's because they are all obsessed with their company BMWs and drive anywhere). Nor did they understand that I couldn't pop round that afternoon fir a viewing and could do with something in the evening after work.
So I am hoping for a much less personal service next time
Thanks to pressure from IDS the government will legislate to make causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling a criminal offence. As such offences already exist for motorists, lorry drivers and motorcyclists who drive dangerously or carelessly and cause death or serious injury "Death by dangerous cycling set to become offence - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish, a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
Thanks to pressure from IDS the government will legislate to make causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling a criminal offence. As such offences already exist for motorists, lorry drivers and motorcyclists who drive dangerously or carelessly and cause death or serious injury "Death by dangerous cycling set to become offence - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715
There is always manslaughter. My view is it should still be charged as such in the most egregious cases of DbDD.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
The stress of moving cannot be underestimated, particularly for older people. The system has become more complicated in recent years, not less, and less personal. Estate agents and solicitors don’t really want to speak to you anymore, they want you to use their new fangled apps. Younger folks can struggle by with that, someone approaching, or in, retirement finds it much harder.
Downsizing as a retiree also can bring with it some bittersweet feelings as it’s an acknowledgment that maybe the big house is too big for them now and that they are approaching twilight years.
I last moved house 20 years ago (yes I get inertia too, although I did consider moving at one point but reckoned moving from a 2 bed flat to a 2 bed house would cost me a lot of money and not gain me anything).
My experience with estate agents was dire. I was just moving 30 miles from London to Hampshire but it might as have been the dark side of the moon. By then many of the estate agents were national chains, but could you walk into an estate agent in New Malden and buy a house anywhere in the country? No. Sometimes I had to deal with different branches of the same agency in Fleet and Farnborough 4 miles apart. They didn't understand what I wanted (no I don't want a 3 bedroom house, yes it's cheap but that's because it's next to the M3) and they didn't understand what commuting to London meant (I think it's because they are all obsessed with their company BMWs and drive anywhere). Nor did they understand that I couldn't pop round that afternoon fir a viewing and could do with something in the evening after work.
So I am hoping for a much less personal service next time
How on Earth do estate agents in Fleet and Farnbourgh not understand commuting? Those two towns, near where I grew up, have half their working populations seemingly fighting for a seat on every train to London in the morning.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
Anything over 30 feels scary to me.
I'd have thought that over 50, you'd have to be free-wheeling unless you've got specialist gears fitted - the pedal speed, even in top, would simply be too great (not to mention the risks of unbalancing)? But there will be plenty of hills where it's easy enough to hit 50 on a bike.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
A priority is what you say is important and intend to do. House building wasnt on his list ergo .
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
Every time Kamala appears on TV the Dem polling falls, she’s a huge drag on the ticket.
Biden would have been much better off picking someone more popular, who would either be in a position to take over this year or give the impression of being able to to take over if Biden’s health deteriorates further.
But he picked the black woman, primarily because she was a black woman.
trump got elected primarily because a lot of voters went insane that they had a black president.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
You are forgetting the left green vote - while, often, such people generally support "building more houses", they almost always object to every single actual development.
Very common to see a coalition of NIMBYism protesting to the council etc.
So that's more people Starmer doesn't want to scare.
The question is can he sustain this.
He wants to build more houses in the South but wont announce where for fear of upsetting the locals. But by this stage if he is going to deliver on his target he will need to know where the building sites are. If he palms it all off to a review if in government, he'll build nothing.
yes, but the tories were elected 5 years ago to build a load of hospitals and railways but Sunak has decided that was too much of a faff.
Question for the lawyers on here: is there any merit in the defense claim for a mistrial for Trump based on the fact Stormy Daniels is discussing details of their sex acts, when this is ostensibly about campaign finance violations?
The defense claim that the sex details are designed to turn the jury against Trump but aren't relevant to whether the payments were illegal seems prima facie credible to me.
Pretty disgusting. Carrying while black ought not to give carte blanche to murder.
The victim pointed a gun at the man who shot him.
That's what he claimed at trial (other witnesses said otherwise) and was nonetheless found guilty by the jury.
So no, he didn't.
This evidence wasn't presented at trial, and makes the pardon even more disgusting.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/16/daniel-perry-greg-abbott-pardon/ ...Shortly after Perry’s conviction, unsealed court documents revealed he had made a slew of racist, threatening comments about protesters in text messages and social media posts. Days after George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer prompted nationwide protests, Perry sent a text message saying, “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”..
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
This is f-ing ridiculous. The two main parties are effectively launching their election campaigns even though we are told the GE is not until at least November now.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
A priority is what you say is important and intend to do. House building wasnt on his list ergo .
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
Does he though. The Tories obviously won't do anything about housebuilding, as the current situation suits them. So the fact that Labour might not, doesn't really matter.
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
Every time Kamala appears on TV the Dem polling falls, she’s a huge drag on the ticket.
Biden would have been much better off picking someone more popular, who would either be in a position to take over this year or give the impression of being able to to take over if Biden’s health deteriorates further.
But he picked the black woman, primarily because she was a black woman.
trump got elected primarily because a lot of voters went insane that they had a black president.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
You are forgetting the left green vote - while, often, such people generally support "building more houses", they almost always object to every single actual development.
Very common to see a coalition of NIMBYism protesting to the council etc.
So that's more people Starmer doesn't want to scare.
The question is can he sustain this.
He wants to build more houses in the South but wont announce where for fear of upsetting the locals. But by this stage if he is going to deliver on his target he will need to know where the building sites are. If he palms it all off to a review if in government, he'll build nothing.
yes, but the tories were elected 5 years ago to build a load of hospitals and railways but Sunak has decided that was too much of a faff.
The Tories have totally failed on infrastructure and deserve their kicking, SKS doing the same for 5 years however is simply more of the same.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish, a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
It's fair to ask about house building not even appearing in the 'pledges'. And what Labour would actually do about it in government remains opaque. But being reminded on a regular basis that Alanbrooke doesn't like Starmer is a bit tedious.
Question for the lawyers on here: is there any merit in the defense claim for a mistrial for Trump based on the fact Stormy Daniels is discussing details of their sex acts, when this is ostensibly about campaign finance violations?
The defense claim that the sex details are designed to turn the jury against Trump but aren't relevant to whether the payments were illegal seems prima facie credible to me.
IANAL but maybe it is important to demonstrate that sex did in fact take place, to establish a motive for Trump paying her off
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
A priority is what you say is important and intend to do. House building wasnt on his list ergo .
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
Does he though. The Tories obviously won't do anything about housebuilding, as the current situation suits them. So the fact that Labour might not, doesn't really matter.
Thats just plain daft. The country needs lots more housing.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
Well over 100km/h on the Simplonpass in the Swiss Alps. Overtook a Renault Megane around the outside of a blind curve on the wrong side of road just because. Generally the Swiss descents are the fastest if you're looking to break your PB.
Been off at over 70km/h in the French Alps when I was a stagiaire. Due to the lack of abrasion resistance and energy absorption offered by lyrca it felt like jumping out of moving car wearing pajamas.
“ Liv Garfield was awarded £3.2m in pay, bonuses and shares last year, while over the past four years she has earned nearly £13m.”
Hmm not sure earned is the correct word here. I’m not sure anyone should be entirely comfortable with excess executive remuneration, particularly when those executives move from job to job, industry to industry and as the PO enquiry and other similar instances show they are all pathologically incapable of taking the responsibility they are ludicrously overpaid to take.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
A priority is what you say is important and intend to do. House building wasnt on his list ergo .
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
But it hasn't gone. Maybe it would be pledge 7. If there were 10 pledges. The pledges are prioritised, they don't just stop at number 6 until term 2.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
Thanks to pressure from IDS the government will legislate to make causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling a criminal offence. As such offences already exist for motorists, lorry drivers and motorcyclists who drive dangerously or carelessly and cause death or serious injury "Death by dangerous cycling set to become offence - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715
There is always manslaughter. My view is it should still be charged as such in the most egregious cases of DbDD.
DbDD was only introduced in the first place as juries were reluctant to convict drivers of manslaughter
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish, a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
It's fair to ask about house building not even appearing in the 'pledges'. And what Labour would actually do about it in government remains opaque. But being reminded on a regular basis that Alanbrooke doesn't like Starmer is a bit tedious.
I suppose its a bit like being reminded you dont like Trump.
Question for the lawyers on here: is there any merit in the defense claim for a mistrial for Trump based on the fact Stormy Daniels is discussing details of their sex acts, when this is ostensibly about campaign finance violations?
The defense claim that the sex details are designed to turn the jury against Trump but aren't relevant to whether the payments were illegal seems prima facie credible to me.
I think it goes to motive. The prosecution is trying to establish why the payments were made. That, in turn, removes some reasonable doubt. But I’m an English Employment Law solicitor, not an American Criminal Law attorney so don’t take my word for it.
Question for the lawyers on here: is there any merit in the defense claim for a mistrial for Trump based on the fact Stormy Daniels is discussing details of their sex acts, when this is ostensibly about campaign finance violations?
The defense claim that the sex details are designed to turn the jury against Trump but aren't relevant to whether the payments were illegal seems prima facie credible to me.
The defence brought up the matter first, AIUI, so they can't now complain about it being discussed. Or, they can complain, but the judge has dismissed the complaint.
This is f-ing ridiculous. The two main parties are effectively launching their election campaigns even though we are told the GE is not until at least November now.
Just the call the bloody thing.
One would have thought with the economy "going gangbusters" he'd call one.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
A priority is what you say is important and intend to do. House building wasnt on his list ergo .
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
But it hasn't gone. Maybe it would be pledge 7. If there were 10 pledges. The pledges are prioritised, they don't just stop at number 6 until term 2.
Are you mad ? A government will be lucky to deliver 3 out of 6 as "events" tend to divert attention elsewhere. Anthing beyond pledge 5 falls in to the nice to category not priority.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
A priority is what you say is important and intend to do. House building wasnt on his list ergo .
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
Does he though. The Tories obviously won't do anything about housebuilding, as the current situation suits them. So the fact that Labour might not, doesn't really matter.
Thats just plain daft. The country needs lots more housing.
I agree, if I was setting out a plan for government I would be looking at ways of breaking the monopoly power of the big house builders, prevent land banking, encouraging mixed use developments, deregulation of town centres etc. There is a lot of unused retail that should be turned into housing IMO. But as a strategy for getting elected, I think it is better to ignore the issue. Cynical, but true.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
I love the chart they reproduce, showing - after a rise from 2010-2015 - static or decreasing injuries from cyclist/pedestrian collisions, then they cherry pick an increase from 2020 -> 2022 to report. Anything happening in 2020 and 2021 that might have led to a big reduction in collisions, as clearly set out on the graph? Let me think... The rise in road deaths since 2020 must be a real shocker, too.
ETA: Actually there's a chart further down showing a spike in miles cycled in 2020, so that's interesting in the context of lower collisions. Fewer pedestrians about, more of those miles on recreational tracks, I guess. And also shows a general increase in cycling 2010-2015 which probabl explains the observed increase in collisions.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
I think this 52 is achievable on the flat, it's the sort of peak I would expect if 33 can be sustained for an hour.
Yes, the 184mph was behind a car. Still scary as hell to do it though!
One can well imagine a racing bike, with a good rider and the right gearing, getting to 52 on a level and quiet road for a short period. I think my record is about 35, down a steep hill, but I could do 20 on the level for short periods with little training and a Halford’s bike when I was about 16.
This is f-ing ridiculous. The two main parties are effectively launching their election campaigns even though we are told the GE is not until at least November now.
Just the call the bloody thing.
One would have thought with the economy "going gangbusters" he'd call one.
He'll want interest rates to start coming down, which hasn't happened yet
I'd be interested to know the last time someone was pardoned in this sort of way in the UK. Probably a long time ago.
Does anyone here have that authority? Can the PM or the monarch, for example?
The monarch has the prerogative of mercy. It was that prerogative that was used to pardon gay men for cottaging in the 50s and those shot for cowardice in WWI as I recall. So the ability to effect a pardon in the UK ultimately rests with the sovereign, but is only used on the advice of the government AFAIU.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
And Sunak’s big speech on Monday is on everyone’s lips.
This site is getting beyond parody.
Starmer is meant to be the coming man. The Blair of this age. The answer to dishwater dull,
Only your imagination is he the “Blair of his age” because literally no one else says that. In fact the uniform consensus is that he is no Blair despite adopting some aspects of Blairism. Read some political journalism FFS. There is life outside the Daily Telegraph. Then join Isam and BJO in recovery.
so in effect he is Sunak without the experience ?
thats not going to solve anything.
Experience counts for zip if nothing has been learned in nearly two years, and every knee jerk reactionary announcement is a response to a Daily Mail headline
Well that accounts for Starmer, but isnt Sunak doing the same ?
I should have added the rider that I knew you would counter with that statement.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish, a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
It's fair to ask about house building not even appearing in the 'pledges'. And what Labour would actually do about it in government remains opaque. But being reminded on a regular basis that Alanbrooke doesn't like Starmer is a bit tedious.
I suppose its a bit like being reminded you dont like Trump.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
A priority is what you say is important and intend to do. House building wasnt on his list ergo .
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
Does he though. The Tories obviously won't do anything about housebuilding, as the current situation suits them. So the fact that Labour might not, doesn't really matter.
Thats just plain daft. The country needs lots more housing.
I agree, if I was setting out a plan for government I would be looking at ways of breaking the monopoly power of the big house builders, prevent land banking, encouraging mixed use developments, deregulation of town centres etc. There is a lot of unused retail that should be turned into housing IMO. But as a strategy for getting elected, I think it is better to ignore the issue. Cynical, but true.
The undercurrent being he wont do much different than Sunak and all those people needing affordable houses wont have much chance of getting one. At what point do we call out cynicism ?
Thanks to pressure from IDS the government will legislate to make causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling a criminal offence. As such offences already exist for motorists, lorry drivers and motorcyclists who drive dangerously or carelessly and cause death or serious injury "Death by dangerous cycling set to become offence - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715
There is always manslaughter. My view is it should still be charged as such in the most egregious cases of DbDD.
DbDD was only introduced in the first place as juries were reluctant to convict drivers of manslaughter
Indeed, but now manslaughter seems never to be used, even in the most egregious cases. You could charge both, and let the jury decide.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish, a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
It's fair to ask about house building not even appearing in the 'pledges'. And what Labour would actually do about it in government remains opaque. But being reminded on a regular basis that Alanbrooke doesn't like Starmer is a bit tedious.
I suppose its a bit like being reminded you dont like Trump.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
And Sunak’s big speech on Monday is on everyone’s lips.
This site is getting beyond parody.
Starmer is meant to be the coming man. The Blair of this age. The answer to dishwater dull,
Only your imagination is he the “Blair of his age” because literally no one else says that. In fact the uniform consensus is that he is no Blair despite adopting some aspects of Blairism. Read some political journalism FFS. There is life outside the Daily Telegraph. Then join Isam and BJO in recovery.
so in effect he is Sunak without the experience ?
thats not going to solve anything.
Experience counts for zip if nothing has been learned in nearly two years, and every knee jerk reactionary announcement is a response to a Daily Mail headline
Well that accounts for Starmer, but isnt Sunak doing the same ?
I should have added the rider that I knew you would counter with that statement.
Pretty disgusting. Carrying while black ought not to give carte blanche to murder.
The victim pointed a gun at the man who shot him.
Perry claimed that Foster pointed his gun at him. Eyewitnesses said otherwise.
It's also nuts that people are rocking up to protests with assault rifles, but that's the States for you (and given that doing so was perfectly legal, it's no excuse for his shooting - but it's not that surprising if people are in high stress/confrontational situations with guns that people get shot)
Question for the lawyers on here: is there any merit in the defense claim for a mistrial for Trump based on the fact Stormy Daniels is discussing details of their sex acts, when this is ostensibly about campaign finance violations?
The defense claim that the sex details are designed to turn the jury against Trump but aren't relevant to whether the payments were illegal seems prima facie credible to me.
The defence brought up the matter first, AIUI, so they can't now complain about it being discussed. Or, they can complain, but the judge has dismissed the complaint.
They didn't just bring it up - they questioned whether it even happened, in their opening statement. Had they stipulated to it pre-trial, it would not have been explored in evidence at all, beyond the fact itself.
“ Liv Garfield was awarded £3.2m in pay, bonuses and shares last year, while over the past four years she has earned nearly £13m.”
Hmm not sure earned is the correct word here. I’m not sure anyone should be entirely comfortable with excess executive remuneration, particularly when those executives move from job to job, industry to industry and as the PO enquiry and other similar instances show they are all pathologically incapable of taking the responsibility they are ludicrously overpaid to take.
I am sure the selection of picture with her with a large grin on her face was purely coincidental.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
A priority is what you say is important and intend to do. House building wasnt on his list ergo .
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
Does he though. The Tories obviously won't do anything about housebuilding, as the current situation suits them. So the fact that Labour might not, doesn't really matter.
Thats just plain daft. The country needs lots more housing.
I agree, if I was setting out a plan for government I would be looking at ways of breaking the monopoly power of the big house builders, prevent land banking, encouraging mixed use developments, deregulation of town centres etc. There is a lot of unused retail that should be turned into housing IMO. But as a strategy for getting elected, I think it is better to ignore the issue. Cynical, but true.
The undercurrent being he wont do much different than Sunak and all those people needing affordable houses wont have much chance of getting one. At what point do we call out cynicism ?
You don't know that until he is in office. He might build loads of houses or he might build none.
You are basing his future performance as PM on your instincts 8 and a half months before he wins or loses an election.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
I think this 52 is achievable on the flat, it's the sort of peak I would expect if 33 can be sustained for an hour.
The very best pro sprinters (Philipsen, Merlier, etc.) can hit 68-70km/h on a finish but you have to be in the 1,200W club to do that. There is no way anybody is hitting 84km/h on the streets of London by human motive power alone.
Using "miles" in discussion related to cycling is the ultimate obscenity.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
I hit 80kph (55mph) on a fully loaded touring bike on the Andean downhill from Santiago to Mendoza in a stonking tailwind. It was terrifying but I was young and foolhardy at the time.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
The roads around here were getting better, in terms of the whole car thing.
The problem with the furious cyclists (and their brethren the furious ebikers) is that they are using infrastructure for pedestrians (pavements) and for more traditional cyclists (the increasing number of segregated cycle lanes).
If you are in a moderately narrow, segregated cycle lane, say, cruising along at 10mph, and someone is coming towards you at 25mph that is really not an enjoyable experience. When you add in the weight of the ebikes, and the very large boxes the delivery guys add on... You are being approached by an aggressive moped rider, in reality.
A lot of the electric bikes the delivery riders are using should really be classified as mopeds, meaning that the riders need insurance, wear a helmet, and stick to the roads.
A lot of the Chinese stuff comes with an easy way to modify them to remove all restrictions, usually by a method as simple as cutting a wire loop.
A lot of the feeling against cyclists is against delivery drivers, often on electrical bikes dodging around pedestrians at speed. Electric bikes should be treated as mopeds in law.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
A priority is what you say is important and intend to do. House building wasnt on his list ergo .
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
Does he though. The Tories obviously won't do anything about housebuilding, as the current situation suits them. So the fact that Labour might not, doesn't really matter.
Thats just plain daft. The country needs lots more housing.
I agree, if I was setting out a plan for government I would be looking at ways of breaking the monopoly power of the big house builders, prevent land banking, encouraging mixed use developments, deregulation of town centres etc. There is a lot of unused retail that should be turned into housing IMO. But as a strategy for getting elected, I think it is better to ignore the issue. Cynical, but true.
The undercurrent being he wont do much different than Sunak and all those people needing affordable houses wont have much chance of getting one. At what point do we call out cynicism ?
There are two plausible main scenarios with Starmer.
1 He is as dull and conservative as he is portaying and will do little more than Sunak with a clean slate on competence and without the backdrop of Tory party intrigue and shenanigans that Sunak has to put up with. 2 He is misdirecting the electorate to win power and will have the above advantages plus a will to drive some real change on things that matter like housing and investment.
I suspect its closer to 2 based on his Labour leadership contest and subsequent pivots but both scenarios are still clear improvements on the Tories so it doesn't really matter from a voting perspective, even though it is a big difference to UK plc's future.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
Having comprehensively dissed Paula Vennels and her work as head of the PO, Alisdair Campbell (her former CFO) was shown his hand-written note to her on learning of her resignation. It was a glowing tribute.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
I hit 80kph (55mph) on a fully loaded touring bike on the Andean downhill from Santiago to Mendoza in a stonking tailwind. It was terrifying but I was young and foolhardy at the time.
That being said, Strava makes people do silly things.
Early on in the Syrian civil war I was in Reyhanli on the Turkey/Syria border with a colleague who decided to borrow a bike in order to create a new Strava segment between Reynhanli and the Syrian border.
For context, each night we'd fall asleep in our hotels listening to the cluster bombs falling just behind the hillside.
For avoidance of doubt, this chap was an arsehole.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
A lot of us from the left or right are wary of Starmer, and you clearly don't like him, which is fine, neither do I. Nonetheless rather than posting post after post essentially saying Starmer is rubbish a little data explaining why would be helpful. BJO for example explains Starmer's shortcomings in relation to his unhelpful reaction to October 7th (one you would probably agree with) and his banishment of Corbyn from a proximity to any lever of power (something else you would agree with). When you do cite a critical issue you normally make stuff up like " what happened to house building?" as though it has been dropped, which it clearly hasn't.
A priority is what you say is important and intend to do. House building wasnt on his list ergo .
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
Does he though. The Tories obviously won't do anything about housebuilding, as the current situation suits them. So the fact that Labour might not, doesn't really matter.
Thats just plain daft. The country needs lots more housing.
I agree, if I was setting out a plan for government I would be looking at ways of breaking the monopoly power of the big house builders, prevent land banking, encouraging mixed use developments, deregulation of town centres etc. There is a lot of unused retail that should be turned into housing IMO. But as a strategy for getting elected, I think it is better to ignore the issue. Cynical, but true.
The undercurrent being he wont do much different than Sunak and all those people needing affordable houses wont have much chance of getting one. At what point do we call out cynicism ?
You don't know that until he is in office. He might build loads of houses or he might build none.
You are basing his future performance as PM on your instincts 8 and a half months before he wins or loses an election.
LOL if I ant base my view on him shortly before an election when can I ? As the old saying goes you cant fatten a pig on market day. So far Starmer has been less than convincing. He's just there, like a traffic bollard on a street.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
I hit 80kph (55mph) on a fully loaded touring bike on the Andean downhill from Santiago to Mendoza in a stonking tailwind. It was terrifying but I was young and foolhardy at the time.
I think the fastest I have got to since I started cycling again 10 years ago was 30 MPH, going down hill on a main road. It was not an experience I wish to repeat.
I usually manage 12-14MPH on the flat cycling to and from work.
I'd be interested to know the last time someone was pardoned in this sort of way in the UK. Probably a long time ago.
Does anyone here have that authority? Can the PM or the monarch, for example?
The monarch has the prerogative of mercy. It was that prerogative that was used to pardon gay men for cottaging in the 50s and those shot for cowardice in WWI as I recall. So the ability to effect a pardon in the UK ultimately rests with the sovereign, but is only used on the advice of the government AFAIU.
That’s right. I believe the practice was that the Home Secretary would make a recommendation to the sovereign
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
And Sunak’s big speech on Monday is on everyone’s lips.
This site is getting beyond parody.
Starmer is meant to be the coming man. The Blair of this age. The answer to dishwater dull,
Speak for yourself.
Starmer and his team did pretty well yesterday getting those 6 immediate priorities across. They were duly, individually, listed on a couple of the news outlets that I heard, and got a lot of coverage. I am not usually good at reciting lists, but they stuck in the memory enough that can recite them now, something that I can't say I could do with his earlier equivalent "missions". Boosting economic growth, cutting NHS waiting lists, border security and fighting criminal gangs, tackling anti-social behaviour, more teachers and a publically owned energy company investing in green technology. All accompanied by a bit of spin afterwards about how other stuff not on the list will also happen, just as happened in 1997, I remember the national minimum wage being cited in that context.
By contrast, just like Doug I can't remember what on earth Sunak was on about the day before.
They had 6 priorities none of which amounted to anything much.
Where was house building ? Has it been dropped ?
No, the house building commitment has not been dropped. It's all still there in full detail and will very obviously be there in the manifesto, including a commitment to release "grey belt" land. I think you are reading far too much into a short term pledge card of what are no more than 6 soundbites designed for instant appeal.
Below is the policy link, dating from less than a month ago.
“ Liv Garfield was awarded £3.2m in pay, bonuses and shares last year, while over the past four years she has earned nearly £13m.”
Hmm not sure earned is the correct word here. I’m not sure anyone should be entirely comfortable with excess executive remuneration, particularly when those executives move from job to job, industry to industry and as the PO enquiry and other similar instances show they are all pathologically incapable of taking the responsibility they are ludicrously overpaid to take.
I am sure the selection of picture with her with a large grin on her face was purely coincidental.
If I’d been paid £13m in 4 years I suspect it would be difficult to get a picture of me not grinning like a loon.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
I suspect my bearings would catch fire long before then. Or the brakes that I'd be sqeezing for dear life!
Fastest I've ever done is mid 30s in a 40 and that was fucking terrifying. There's a stretch on my way home that is 20mph limit downhill and I probably routinely exceed that when there's no traffic, but I'm not tracking it - if there are cars I match their pace and that requires some brake use.
FWIW I'd be quite happy with Strava et all being banned from recording speeds over the speed limit on roads (say those with 20mph limits for sure, 30mph limits maybe) to discourage this kind of thing - given a database and required to automatically adjust the recorded speed down to the maximum allowed for motor vehicles or simply not report to reduce the incentive to go faster. The trouble is that you'd probably just get lots of new apps popping up without the restriction and hard to police it.
While there's no speed limit per se on bikes, you can be nicked for cycling carelessly, dangerously or furiously, so the girls and boys in blue could be stopping people taking the piss?
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
TdFers have exceeded 100kph. There's one local hill where I max out at 37mph and I think I could go a fair bit faster but for abject fear
The world record for a bicycle is 184mph, one of few outright human performance records held by a woman, Denise Mueller-Korenek
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
And Sunak’s big speech on Monday is on everyone’s lips.
This site is getting beyond parody.
Starmer is meant to be the coming man. The Blair of this age. The answer to dishwater dull,
Speak for yourself.
Starmer and his team did pretty well yesterday getting those 6 immediate priorities across. They were duly, individually, listed on a couple of the news outlets that I heard, and got a lot of coverage. I am not usually good at reciting lists, but they stuck in the memory enough that can recite them now, something that I can't say I could do with his earlier equivalent "missions". Boosting economic growth, cutting NHS waiting lists, border security and fighting criminal gangs, tackling anti-social behaviour, more teachers and a publically owned energy company investing in green technology. All accompanied by a bit of spin afterwards about how other stuff not on the list will also happen, just as happened in 1997, I remember the national minimum wage being cited in that context.
By contrast, just like Doug I can't remember what on earth Sunak was on about the day before.
They had 6 priorities none of which amounted to anything much.
Where was house building ? Has it been dropped ?
No, the house building commitment has not been dropped. It's all still there in full detail and will very obviously be there in the manifesto, including a commitment to release "grey belt" land. I think you are reading far too much into a short term pledge card of what are no more than 6 soundbites designed for instant appeal.
Below is the policy link, dating from less than a month ago.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
52 downhill is easily achieved but I can't think of any hills feeding in to that stretch
Not really. You'd have to be flying down a steep hill in full lycra, pedalling hard, with the gear range to allow for it.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
I suspect my bearings would catch fire long before then. Or the brakes that I'd be sqeezing for dear life!
Fastest I've ever done is mid 30s in a 40 and that was fucking terrifying. There's a stretch on my way home that is 20mph limit downhill and I probably routinely exceed that when there's no traffic, but I'm not tracking it - if there are cars I match their pace and that requires some brake use.
FWIW I'd be quite happy with Strava et all being banned from recording speeds over the speed limit on roads (say those with 20mph limits for sure, 30mph limits maybe) to discourage this kind of thing - given a database and required to automatically adjust the recorded speed down to the maximum allowed for motor vehicles or simply not report to reduce the incentive to go faster. The trouble is that you'd probably just get lots of new apps popping up without the restriction and hard to police it.
While there's no speed limit per se on bikes, you can be nicked for cycling carelessly, dangerously or furiously, so the girls and boys in blue could be stopping people taking the piss?
Just wait until the Telegraph finds out about Dragy.
Having comprehensively dissed Paula Vennels and her work as head of the PO, Alisdair Campbell (her former CFO) was shown his hand-written note to her on learning of her resignation. It was a glowing tribute.
How embarrassing!
Up until that point he had appeared impressively suave,assured, and disanced from all the mischiefs caused by the PO.
He now looks like a man who has swallowed a bee and is trying to digest it.
Comments
He wants to build more houses in the South but wont announce where for fear of upsetting the locals. But by this stage if he is going to deliver on his target he will need to know where the building sites are. If he palms it all off to a review if in government, he'll build nothing.
A lot of the Chinese stuff comes with an easy way to modify them to remove all restrictions, usually by a method as simple as cutting a wire loop.
I used to laugh at the "links fahren" signs in the area - not many foreigners flying into Bantry aerodrome and hiring cars I guffawed. I now realise they're for the resident population.
"Daniel Perry: Texas pardons US soldier who shot Black Lives Matter protester - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-69013312
https://fullfact.org/economy/millionaire-pensioners/
One, perhaps two water companies are likely to go under during their first year, and the argument over what to do about it will tie up time and political capital.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH9-iZqWttA
Carrying while black ought not to give carte blanche to murder.
I'm sure DA has hit speeds like that but I've only ever managed 40mph.
My experience with estate agents was dire. I was just moving 30 miles from London to Hampshire but it might as have been the dark side of the moon. By then many of the estate agents were national chains, but could you walk into an estate agent in New Malden and buy a house anywhere in the country? No. Sometimes I had to deal with different branches of the same agency in Fleet and Farnborough 4 miles apart. They didn't understand what I wanted (no I don't want a 3 bedroom house, yes it's cheap but that's because it's next to the M3) and they didn't understand what commuting to London meant (I think it's because they are all obsessed with their company BMWs and drive anywhere). Nor did they understand that I couldn't pop round that afternoon fir a viewing and could do with something in the evening after work.
So I am hoping for a much less personal service next time
"Death by dangerous cycling set to become offence - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715
ETA: Not a comment on the rights or wrongs, but I don't think there's a race angle here.
I'd have thought that over 50, you'd have to be free-wheeling unless you've got specialist gears fitted - the pedal speed, even in top, would simply be too great (not to mention the risks of unbalancing)? But there will be plenty of hills where it's easy enough to hit 50 on a bike.
Its the one point I have consistently said I agree with. Now its gone. Letting him just flit from soundbite to soundbite
isnt actually doing anyone any favours. Policy means policy and determines what we will be spending our taxes on. If SKS wants us to believe he will take "tough decisions" he needs to walk the walk.
The defense claim that the sex details are designed to turn the jury against Trump but aren't relevant to whether the payments were illegal seems prima facie credible to me.
So no, he didn't.
This evidence wasn't presented at trial, and makes the pardon even more disgusting.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/16/daniel-perry-greg-abbott-pardon/
...Shortly after Perry’s conviction, unsealed court documents revealed he had made a slew of racist, threatening comments about protesters in text messages and social media posts. Days after George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer prompted nationwide protests, Perry sent a text message saying, “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoUmgMhn2iY
Just the call the bloody thing.
"Harrison Butker 'homemaker' speech sparks backlash - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-69021543
But being reminded on a regular basis that Alanbrooke doesn't like Starmer is a bit tedious.
Been off at over 70km/h in the French Alps when I was a stagiaire. Due to the lack of abrasion resistance and energy absorption offered by lyrca it felt like jumping out of moving car wearing pajamas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0dem8v7epzo
“ Liv Garfield was awarded £3.2m in pay, bonuses and shares last year, while over the past four years she has earned nearly £13m.”
Hmm not sure earned is the correct word here. I’m not sure anyone should be entirely comfortable with excess executive remuneration, particularly when those executives move from job to job, industry to industry and as the PO enquiry and other similar instances show they are all pathologically incapable of taking the responsibility they are ludicrously overpaid to take.
I think this 52 is achievable on the flat, it's the sort of peak I would expect if 33 can be sustained for an hour.
Executing protestors is equally wrong.
ETA: Actually there's a chart further down showing a spike in miles cycled in 2020, so that's interesting in the context of lower collisions. Fewer pedestrians about, more of those miles on recreational tracks, I guess. And also shows a general increase in cycling 2010-2015 which probabl explains the observed increase in collisions.
https://simpleflying.com/maccready-gossamer-albatross-story/
All perfectly reasonable and the fact he then did go on to shoot and kill a protestor a complete coincidence I'm sure.
One can well imagine a racing bike, with a good rider and the right gearing, getting to 52 on a level and quiet road for a short period. I think my record is about 35, down a steep hill, but I could do 20 on the level for short periods with little training and a Halford’s bike when I was about 16.
Had they stipulated to it pre-trial, it would not have been explored in evidence at all, beyond the fact itself.
You are basing his future performance as PM on your instincts 8 and a half months before he wins or loses an election.
Using "miles" in discussion related to cycling is the ultimate obscenity.
1 He is as dull and conservative as he is portaying and will do little more than Sunak with a clean slate on competence and without the backdrop of Tory party intrigue and shenanigans that Sunak has to put up with.
2 He is misdirecting the electorate to win power and will have the above advantages plus a will to drive some real change on things that matter like housing and investment.
I suspect its closer to 2 based on his Labour leadership contest and subsequent pivots but both scenarios are still clear improvements on the Tories so it doesn't really matter from a voting perspective, even though it is a big difference to UK plc's future.
Having comprehensively dissed Paula Vennels and her work as head of the PO, Alisdair Campbell (her former CFO) was shown his hand-written note to her on learning of her resignation. It was a glowing tribute.
How embarrassing!
Early on in the Syrian civil war I was in Reyhanli on the Turkey/Syria border with a colleague who decided to borrow a bike in order to create a new Strava segment between Reynhanli and the Syrian border.
For context, each night we'd fall asleep in our hotels listening to the cluster bombs falling just behind the hillside.
For avoidance of doubt, this chap was an arsehole.
I usually manage 12-14MPH on the flat cycling to and from work.
Below is the policy link, dating from less than a month ago.
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-housing-plan-how-well-protect-our-natural-spaces-and-free-up-grey-belt-land-for-building/
Fastest I've ever done is mid 30s in a 40 and that was fucking terrifying. There's a stretch on my way home that is 20mph limit downhill and I probably routinely exceed that when there's no traffic, but I'm not tracking it - if there are cars I match their pace and that requires some brake use.
FWIW I'd be quite happy with Strava et all being banned from recording speeds over the speed limit on roads (say those with 20mph limits for sure, 30mph limits maybe) to discourage this kind of thing - given a database and required to automatically adjust the recorded speed down to the maximum allowed for motor vehicles or simply not report to reduce the incentive to go faster. The trouble is that you'd probably just get lots of new apps popping up without the restriction and hard to police it.
While there's no speed limit per se on bikes, you can be nicked for cycling carelessly, dangerously or furiously, so the girls and boys in blue could be stopping people taking the piss?
He now looks like a man who has swallowed a bee and is trying to digest it.