That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
On top of this we get all the stories of illegal migrant Albanian rapist-murderers being allowed to stay because their wife’s pet parakeet dislikes Tirana
If the left REALLY wants a reform government, way to go
I don't remember the Parakeet story, do you have a source other than Fox or GBeebies?
Why do so many Europeans think it's okay to insult America all the time while also lecturing the country on how it should deploy its military and other assets? Seems like an odd combination.
The objection is to Trump imposing a surrender deal on our behalf, while disclaiming any responsibility for the aftermath.
Obviously we can't tell the US how to deploy its assets.
Why do so many Europeans think it's okay to insult America all the time while also lecturing the country on how it should deploy its military and other assets? Seems like an odd combination.
Well quite.
Others due for a rethink include Tory politicians forever slashing defence, and all the armchair experts who say Britain should buy arms off the shelf rather than maintain domestic manufacturing capacity – fine until the seller stops selling.
Not to mention anyone who has ever posted to pb the phrase Trump Derangement Syndrome.
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
It’s a shot across the bows of Rupert Lowe who owns a battery storage company.
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
The great disrupter will disrupt everything, and a lot of things that were impossible last week will become possible. For example, it may not be long before USA citizens are making asylum claims in UK/Canada etc.
Another is this, and it will be very tempting: that the minimum rights and privileges of refugees and asylum seekers anywhere in the world are to be identical. Just because you get to UK/NZ/Germany/Canada will give you neither more nor fewer rights and privileges that you have in Chad or Bangladesh. Tent. Three meals a day unless Musk says otherwise. Primary education for children unless USAID stops it. Flight home ASAP.
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
Luckily we have you to aid comprehension of ordinary people, and where to get the best oysters in London.
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
On top of this we get all the stories of illegal migrant Albanian rapist-murderers being allowed to stay because their wife’s pet parakeet dislikes Tirana
If the left REALLY wants a reform government, way to go
I don't remember the Parakeet story, do you have a source other than Fox or GBeebies?
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
Luckily we have you to aid comprehension of ordinary people, and where to get the best oysters in London.
Indeed. My wide experience of life affords me an overview denied to those with more limited existences
Even a majority of Reform voters want Welsh! Which is interesting because it clearly is not entirely an incoming retiree vote.
The crap thing about the UK Census in Wales 2021 is that it only asks people if they "are able" to speak/write/understand Welsh, NOT if they consider it their main language/home language/first language. A similar situation exists in the Republic regarding the Irish language in their 2022 Census.
Happily, the Census for England, Northern Ireland, and Scotland (2022 Census) did ask about "main language".
So it's rather easy to find data for England:
English as main language 90.8% Celtic languages and Scots 0.02%
Johnny Foreigner languages: Other European 4.7% Asian/Mid East 4.1% African 0.4% Others 0.1% (inc. Sign)
Scotland:
English as main language 94.5% Scots 0.25% Gaelic 0.05% Sign: 0.05% Others 5.2%
NI:
English as main language: 95.4% Polish: 1.1% Lithuanian 0.5% Irish: 0.3% Romanian: 0.3% Arabic: 0.2% Bulgarian 0.2% Others: 1.8% (inc. Ulster Scots)
However, for the Republic (2022), the stats tell us:
Speak a language other than English OR Irish at home: 15.1% Speak Irish "outside the education system": 1.5%
So does that mean only (100-(15.1+1.5)) 83.4% speak English at home?
And for Wales:
English OR Welsh as main language: 96.7% Other European lingo: 1.8% Asian/Mid East: 1.4% African 0.1% Others: 0.07% and also, separately: "Able to speak" Welsh 17.8%
So does that mean (96.7-17.8) 78.9% speak English at home? Throw me a bone here!
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
Is that what Rupe is on about? M&S food and some sort of takeaway meal?
Why do so many Europeans think it's okay to insult America all the time while also lecturing the country on how it should deploy its military and other assets? Seems like an odd combination.
The objection is to Trump imposing a surrender deal on our behalf, while disclaiming any responsibility for the aftermath.
Obviously we can't tell the US how to deploy its assets.
Though if the European non USA elements of NATO (population about 500 million - about USA and Russia combined - and two nuclear powers) had had its act together its combined population, potential firepower and clout would have got in first with imposing a deal. And it has had several years warning that this was coming.
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
Is that what Rupe is on about? M&S food and some sort of takeaway meal?
There ya go again. Laugh at all the poor hardworking Brits and scoff at Reform
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
It’s a shot across the bows of Rupert Lowe who owns a battery storage company.
Ah, we're going down the People's Front of Judaea line with them, possibly.
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
Is that what Rupe is on about? M&S food and some sort of takeaway meal?
There ya go again. Laugh at all the poor hardworking Brits and scoff at Reform
This shit is gonna devour you
Oh come on, this is a predominantly middles class forum with lots of middle class people.
If this place cannot laugh at the underclass where can ?
Some good economic news for Rachel Reeves. Real wage growth has been strong.
"Annual growth in real terms, adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers' housing costs (CPIH), was 2.5% for regular pay and 2.4% for total pay.
Annual average regular earnings growth for the private sector was 6.0%, while for the public sector, it was 4.1%."
Hang on, private sector pay growing more than public sector? Have I been misinformed by people on here? What about the incoming Labour government caving in to all those excessive public sector pay demands?
It didn't cave in across the public sector - just to some heavily unionised groups. The remainder will have to wait for their increases in the public sector pay round (I think 2.8% in April).
What we seem to be seeing, given the increase in union power, unjustified minimum wage increases and labour market regulation, is the return of a rigid, insider-outsider labour market, similar to those we see in say France. Those in permanent, protected jobs do much better than their productivity indicates they should, because it is so difficult to fire them, while those out of work or trying to break in find it extremely challenging because employers are more reluctant to hire as they are uncertain about their productivity.
It's a recipe for a segregated, stagnant labour market with high unemployment but good short-term wage growth if you're middle-aged and in permanent employment.
I'm glad I'm not young and trying to get my first job though.
Even a majority of Reform voters want Welsh! Which is interesting because it clearly is not entirely an incoming retiree vote.
The crap thing about the UK Census in Wales 2021 is that it only asks people if they "are able" to speak/write/understand Welsh, NOT if they consider it their main language/home language/first language. A similar situation exists in the Republic regarding the Irish language in their 2022 Census.
Happily, the Census for England, Northern Ireland, and Scotland (2022 Census) did ask about "main language".
So it's rather easy to find data for England:
English as main language 90.8% Celtic languages and Scots 0.02%
Johnny Foreigner languages: Other European 4.7% Asian/Mid East 4.1% African 0.4% Others 0.1% (inc. Sign)
Scotland:
English as main language 94.5% Scots 0.25% Gaelic 0.05% Sign: 0.05% Others 5.2%
NI:
English as main language: 95.4% Polish: 1.1% Lithuanian 0.5% Irish: 0.3% Romanian: 0.3% Arabic: 0.2% Bulgarian 0.2% Others: 1.8% (inc. Ulster Scots)
However, for the Republic (2022), the stats tell us:
Speak a language other than English OR Irish at home: 15.1% Speak Irish "outside the education system": 1.5%
So does that mean only (100-(15.1+1.5)) 83.4% speak English at home?
And for Wales:
English OR Welsh as main language: 96.7% Other European lingo: 1.8% Asian/Mid East: 1.4% African 0.1% Others: 0.07% and also, separately: "Able to speak" Welsh 17.8%
So does that mean (96.7-17.8) 78.9% speak English at home? Throw me a bone here!
Not relevant, in a sense, though: if the *voters* want to continue something, as they clearly do, then it shoudl continue.
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
On top of this we get all the stories of illegal migrant Albanian rapist-murderers being allowed to stay because their wife’s pet parakeet dislikes Tirana
If the left REALLY wants a reform government, way to go
I don't remember the Parakeet story, do you have a source other than Fox or GBeebies?
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
On top of this we get all the stories of illegal migrant Albanian rapist-murderers being allowed to stay because their wife’s pet parakeet dislikes Tirana
If the left REALLY wants a reform government, way to go
I don't remember the Parakeet story, do you have a source other than Fox or GBeebies?
Why do so many Europeans think it's okay to insult America all the time while also lecturing the country on how it should deploy its military and other assets? Seems like an odd combination.
The objection is to Trump imposing a surrender deal on our behalf, while disclaiming any responsibility for the aftermath.
Obviously we can't tell the US how to deploy its assets.
Though if the European non USA elements of NATO (population about 500 million - about USA and Russia combined - and two nuclear powers) had had its act together its combined population, potential firepower and clout would have got in first with imposing a deal. And it has had several years warning that this was coming.
Once Trump was elected again a peace deal in Ukraine on current boundaries was always likely.
Unless NATO European nations and Canada significantly increased defence spending to enable Zelensky to continue the war without any US funding
Even a majority of Reform voters want Welsh! Which is interesting because it clearly is not entirely an incoming retiree vote.
The crap thing about the UK Census in Wales 2021 is that it only asks people if they "are able" to speak/write/understand Welsh, NOT if they consider it their main language/home language/first language. A similar situation exists in the Republic regarding the Irish language in their 2022 Census.
Happily, the Census for England, Northern Ireland, and Scotland (2022 Census) did ask about "main language".
So it's rather easy to find data for England:
English as main language 90.8% Celtic languages and Scots 0.02%
Johnny Foreigner languages: Other European 4.7% Asian/Mid East 4.1% African 0.4% Others 0.1% (inc. Sign)
Scotland:
English as main language 94.5% Scots 0.25% Gaelic 0.05% Sign: 0.05% Others 5.2%
NI:
English as main language: 95.4% Polish: 1.1% Lithuanian 0.5% Irish: 0.3% Romanian: 0.3% Arabic: 0.2% Bulgarian 0.2% Others: 1.8% (inc. Ulster Scots)
However, for the Republic (2022), the stats tell us:
Speak a language other than English OR Irish at home: 15.1% Speak Irish "outside the education system": 1.5%
So does that mean only (100-(15.1+1.5)) 83.4% speak English at home?
And for Wales:
English OR Welsh as main language: 96.7% Other European lingo: 1.8% Asian/Mid East: 1.4% African 0.1% Others: 0.07% and also, separately: "Able to speak" Welsh 17.8%
So does that mean (96.7-17.8) 78.9% speak English at home? Throw me a bone here!
Good point. The census was badly designed in several ways, not least the trans question, which led to the highest proportions being found in places like Tower Hamlets.
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
On top of this we get all the stories of illegal migrant Albanian rapist-murderers being allowed to stay because their wife’s pet parakeet dislikes Tirana
If the left REALLY wants a reform government, way to go
I don't remember the Parakeet story, do you have a source other than Fox or GBeebies?
Even a majority of Reform voters want Welsh! Which is interesting because it clearly is not entirely an incoming retiree vote.
The crap thing about the UK Census in Wales 2021 is that it only asks people if they "are able" to speak/write/understand Welsh, NOT if they consider it their main language/home language/first language. A similar situation exists in the Republic regarding the Irish language in their 2022 Census.
Happily, the Census for England, Northern Ireland, and Scotland (2022 Census) did ask about "main language".
So it's rather easy to find data for England:
English as main language 90.8% Celtic languages and Scots 0.02%
Johnny Foreigner languages: Other European 4.7% Asian/Mid East 4.1% African 0.4% Others 0.1% (inc. Sign)
Scotland:
English as main language 94.5% Scots 0.25% Gaelic 0.05% Sign: 0.05% Others 5.2%
NI:
English as main language: 95.4% Polish: 1.1% Lithuanian 0.5% Irish: 0.3% Romanian: 0.3% Arabic: 0.2% Bulgarian 0.2% Others: 1.8% (inc. Ulster Scots)
However, for the Republic (2022), the stats tell us:
Speak a language other than English OR Irish at home: 15.1% Speak Irish "outside the education system": 1.5%
So does that mean only (100-(15.1+1.5)) 83.4% speak English at home?
And for Wales:
English OR Welsh as main language: 96.7% Other European lingo: 1.8% Asian/Mid East: 1.4% African 0.1% Others: 0.07% and also, separately: "Able to speak" Welsh 17.8%
So does that mean (96.7-17.8) 78.9% speak English at home? Throw me a bone here!
Basically, you cannot simply average Wales. Most of Wales speaks English but parts of North and West Wales – Welsh Wales – speak Welsh as their first language. It is misleading to try and average out areas that are near as damn it 100 per cent or zero per cent.
This is slightly complicated by Welsh being taught in schools but a bunch of schoolchildren who will soon forget how to discuss la plume de ma tante can safely be ignored. In my limited experience of dealing with large Welsh organisations, they have specialist translation units.
Bad news for death and destruction fans this morning.
Well done Trump.
SKS fans why has your boy promised £300Bn to Ukraine but is cutting disability payments at home.
Presumably all the Ukranians over here have no excuse not to return home now
"Well done Trump"?
You do realise that the actions of the US government are actually massively destabilisng to the world, and are more likely to lead to wider conflict?
This is appeasement Mk 2.
He is an appeaser, so he's happy with that.
Boo hoo
Your boy that you assured us was going to win
Hasnt
So I take it you are on Putin's side? You want war and destruction? You want the imperialism and fascism ro sweep over Ukraine and eastern Europe?
Just because you hate Starmer?
Side of a more peaceful world and a stop to pissing our taxes into a unwinnable war black hole.
Putins an arse but him not winning was just an impossible wet dream
Have you not noticed how Russia has spent three years not winning, with the west doing the absolute minimum possible to help Ukraine?
The concept of 'Russia stronk' died out in March 2022. They are easily defeatable. But the political will to do so isn't currently there. This makes wider war much more likely.
But it seems you support both Hamas and Putin: what is it about imperialism and fascism, mass murder and anti-Semitism that you like so much?
I support an end to the killing in both conflicts.You support kids been shot in the head as long as there only Arabs.
Seems you just can't get enough death and destruction
Your goodie baddie and Western World police depiction of world affairs is over for the next 4 years
I don't want any death and destruction. You do - which is why you support Hamas and Putin. Why does a leftie so-called socialist suddenly support fascism?
Why do so many Europeans think it's okay to insult America all the time while also lecturing the country on how it should deploy its military and other assets? Seems like an odd combination.
The objection is to Trump imposing a surrender deal on our behalf, while disclaiming any responsibility for the aftermath.
Obviously we can't tell the US how to deploy its assets.
Though if the European non USA elements of NATO (population about 500 million - about USA and Russia combined - and two nuclear powers) had had its act together its combined population, potential firepower and clout would have got in first with imposing a deal. And it has had several years warning that this was coming.
Once Trump was elected again a peace deal in Ukraine on current boundaries was always likely.
Unless NATO European nations and Canada significantly increased defence spending to enable Zelensky to continue the war without any US funding
Sadly I have to agree.
To be fair, I'm sure the US was never going to put 'boots on the ground' in Ukraine, and neither was Western Europe/Canada. Poland might have.
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
A indirect way of nobbling solar and wind, I guess. Same with making new electricity transmission more expensive by burying cables.
Make no mistake, this is a pivotal day in this century. Pulling the plug on Ukraine, US disinvesting in European security, and the big powers redrawing the boundaries of smaller ones. A new reality faces Europe and it’s going to require urgent investment in defence & security.
Reminding us this is exactly what Trump did when he negotiated the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Did they have to pick Munich for this security conference?
The current “negotiations” Trump is entering feel more Molotov-Ribbentrop than Munich, with Trump being the complacent and naive Stalin and Putin the Hitler.
Stalin was not naive. He knew the war was coming and got something out of the deal.
Even a majority of Reform voters want Welsh! Which is interesting because it clearly is not entirely an incoming retiree vote.
The crap thing about the UK Census in Wales 2021 is that it only asks people if they "are able" to speak/write/understand Welsh, NOT if they consider it their main language/home language/first language. A similar situation exists in the Republic regarding the Irish language in their 2022 Census.
Happily, the Census for England, Northern Ireland, and Scotland (2022 Census) did ask about "main language".
So it's rather easy to find data for England:
English as main language 90.8% Celtic languages and Scots 0.02%
Johnny Foreigner languages: Other European 4.7% Asian/Mid East 4.1% African 0.4% Others 0.1% (inc. Sign)
Scotland:
English as main language 94.5% Scots 0.25% Gaelic 0.05% Sign: 0.05% Others 5.2%
NI:
English as main language: 95.4% Polish: 1.1% Lithuanian 0.5% Irish: 0.3% Romanian: 0.3% Arabic: 0.2% Bulgarian 0.2% Others: 1.8% (inc. Ulster Scots)
However, for the Republic (2022), the stats tell us:
Speak a language other than English OR Irish at home: 15.1% Speak Irish "outside the education system": 1.5%
So does that mean only (100-(15.1+1.5)) 83.4% speak English at home?
And for Wales:
English OR Welsh as main language: 96.7% Other European lingo: 1.8% Asian/Mid East: 1.4% African 0.1% Others: 0.07% and also, separately: "Able to speak" Welsh 17.8%
So does that mean (96.7-17.8) 78.9% speak English at home? Throw me a bone here!
Basically, you cannot simply average Wales. Most of Wales speaks English but parts of North and West Wales – Welsh Wales – speak Welsh as their first language. It is misleading to try and average out areas that are near as damn it 100 per cent or zero per cent.
This is slightly complicated by Welsh being taught in schools but a bunch of schoolchildren who will soon forget how to discuss la plume de ma tante can safely be ignored. In my limited experience of dealing with large Welsh organisations, they have specialist translation units.
Wasn't it one of those 'specialist translation units' which returned an 'out of office' message that ended up being accepted as a genuine translation.
ETA I still have a Queen Vic beermat from the BBC's prelaunch publicity for Eastenders. I've never watched the show, not even when my mate's daughter's friend was one of its main stars.
Not sure how the appeasement of hard right authoritarianism - where the working class are brutalised for the benefit of the ruling autocrats - promotes world socialism but whatever.
It's easy to understand why fascists would support Putin - he's the man they would like to be.
It's impossible to understand why anyone claiming to be on the Left would support him, unless their professed beliefs are a lie.
Because quite a few on the far left are, in fact, fascists. The Soviet Union should have taught us all that.
They like strongmen and distrust institutions. Unless those institutions are implemented by strongmen. Like Russia’s promised new “LGBT register”.
In addition, there is a fair amount of anti-Semitism about on the left, as well as the right.
This means Hamas killing Israelis is a-okay, as Israelis are Jewish. And Zelenskyy is Jewish, and therefore obviously on the wrong side of history. And Russia has been historically fairly open to anti-Semitism, so they're the good guys.
Which is all odd, considering how many Jews were involved with developing socialism and socialist theory...
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
A indirect way of nobbling solar and wind, I guess. Same with making new electricity transmission more expensive by burying cables.
I am not one of these eco loons who demand net zero now, but I can see the sense in moving away from oil and gas as quickly as possible and we should facilitate it as soon as possible without fucking our economy.
I do not get what the motivation is to nobble solar and wind. It is a part of a balanced energy portfolio
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
A indirect way of nobbling solar and wind, I guess. Same with making new electricity transmission more expensive by burying cables.
Fear of it at the bottom of the garden. THough one does see cases like this: if it's on the BBC I wonder how it's dealt with in the likes of GB News. NB this is in a Tory/Borders area so a fair target for Reforms.
Not sure how the appeasement of hard right authoritarianism - where the working class are brutalised for the benefit of the ruling autocrats - promotes world socialism but whatever.
It's easy to understand why fascists would support Putin - he's the man they would like to be.
It's impossible to understand why anyone claiming to be on the Left would support him, unless their professed beliefs are a lie.
Because quite a few on the far left are, in fact, fascists. The Soviet Union should have taught us all that.
They like strongmen and distrust institutions. Unless those institutions are implemented by strongmen. Like Russia’s promised new “LGBT register”.
In addition, there is a fair amount of anti-Semitism about on the left, as well as the right.
This means Hamas killing Israelis is a-okay, as Israelis are Jewish. And Zelenskyy is Jewish, and therefore obviously on the wrong side of history. And Russia has been historically fairly open to anti-Semitism, so they're the good guys.
Which is all odd, considering how many Jews were involved with developing socialism and socialist theory...
Which is what Hitler had against them.
There is a theory that much Middle East antisemitism can be traced back to Nazi propaganda broadcasts in the region, aimed at stirring up nationalist resentment of British occupiers.
I see Reform are coming after my storage battery and the reactionaries who watch GB News are supporting it.
I guess they really are Luddites.
What they should go after, are the companies who are actually selling lethally dangerous batteries. Mostly for e-bikes.
What about those gas explosions that keep blowing up people's homes?
Very few and usually caused by people deciding to mess with their gas supply in some way. On the other hand the British Safety Council say there is a serious and growing risk from Lithium Ion Batteries independent of people misusing them.
"Lithium-ion batteries have many advantages, but their safety depends on how they are manufactured, used, stored and recycled".
Reading the article it seems to me that much of this could be dealt with by better education and some changes in regulations. But it is clear that the batteries are a recognised risk.
If you ever do a firefighting course they will show you what happens when a camping gas canister gets hot and the size of the explosion when that happens. Tens of thousands of people have those in storage in their garages or under the stairs. After doing my first fire fighting course I went home and moved my canisters down to the shed at the end of the garden. It didn't mean I was going to stop using them or that there was anything inherently wrong with them, just that they were/are a potential risk beyond that which I was willing to accept in the house. I think perhaps we should start regarding lithium ion batteries in the same way. Don't stop using them but educate people about the risks and make sure they are kept at a safe distance.
The reason that electric cars have orders of magnitude less fires than diesel/petrol is because of careful design.
A professor in the field - Japanese lady, forget her name - published a paper, years back which established that if you used batteries that were slightly less than peak power to weight (last years design essentially) and were careful with charging, the risk collapses near zero.
Tesla used just obsolete cells from the start - they originally bought the entire output from “last years” Panasonic battery factories. They combined this with carefully controlled charging, fuses to isolate parts of the pack and water cooling. The water cooling keeps the temperature of the pack very even during charging and mitigates fire risk. The final touch is armouring around the pack (used as structure in the car, to save weight).
These ideas all came from the custom electrification industry in LA - pre-Tesla, you could get any car turned into electric by a small number of custom shops. The first Teslas were about systematising this into small volume production.
All the serious EV makers do similar stuff.
The e-bike batteries have none of this, and poor quality control on top.
"The reason that electric cars have orders of magnitude less fires than diesel/petrol is because of careful design."
I'd point out that an awful lot of fires in diesel and petrol cars happen in older cars. When comparing such things, you need to compare cars of similar ages and sizes. Comparing a general car fleet with an average age of about nine years, with a much younger electric car fleet, is incorrect.
Not sure how the appeasement of hard right authoritarianism - where the working class are brutalised for the benefit of the ruling autocrats - promotes world socialism but whatever.
It's easy to understand why fascists would support Putin - he's the man they would like to be.
It's impossible to understand why anyone claiming to be on the Left would support him, unless their professed beliefs are a lie.
Because quite a few on the far left are, in fact, fascists. The Soviet Union should have taught us all that.
They like strongmen and distrust institutions. Unless those institutions are implemented by strongmen. Like Russia’s promised new “LGBT register”.
In addition, there is a fair amount of anti-Semitism about on the left, as well as the right.
This means Hamas killing Israelis is a-okay, as Israelis are Jewish. And Zelenskyy is Jewish, and therefore obviously on the wrong side of history. And Russia has been historically fairly open to anti-Semitism, so they're the good guys.
Which is all odd, considering how many Jews were involved with developing socialism and socialist theory...
Bad news for death and destruction fans this morning.
Well done Trump.
SKS fans why has your boy promised £300Bn to Ukraine but is cutting disability payments at home.
Presumably all the Ukranians over here have no excuse not to return home now
"Well done Trump"?
You do realise that the actions of the US government are actually massively destabilisng to the world, and are more likely to lead to wider conflict?
This is appeasement Mk 2.
He is an appeaser, so he's happy with that.
Boo hoo
Your boy that you assured us was going to win
Hasnt
So I take it you are on Putin's side? You want war and destruction? You want the imperialism and fascism ro sweep over Ukraine and eastern Europe?
Just because you hate Starmer?
Side of a more peaceful world and a stop to pissing our taxes into a unwinnable war black hole.
Putins an arse but him not winning was just an impossible wet dream
Have you not noticed how Russia has spent three years not winning, with the west doing the absolute minimum possible to help Ukraine?
The concept of 'Russia stronk' died out in March 2022. They are easily defeatable. But the political will to do so isn't currently there. This makes wider war much more likely.
But it seems you support both Hamas and Putin: what is it about imperialism and fascism, mass murder and anti-Semitism that you like so much?
I support an end to the killing in both conflicts.You support kids been shot in the head as long as there only Arabs.
Seems you just can't get enough death and destruction
Your goodie baddie and Western World police depiction of world affairs is over for the next 4 years
You're a liar.
You support death and destruction, when it's inflicted upon people you hate (Jews, Ukrainians).
Biden has to shoulder some responsibility here. A friend who's an expert in US history said close to the outset that he thought the US would provide enough support to stop Ukraine losing but not enough to end the war. His reading was that the US wanted Russia tied up in a long conflict and had no humanitarian considerations. That's what seems to have played out, though in hindsight the only point at which it could have been ended swiftly was right at the beginning when the Russian tanks were stuck on the roads.
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
A indirect way of nobbling solar and wind, I guess. Same with making new electricity transmission more expensive by burying cables.
I am not one of these eco loons who demand net zero now, but I can see the sense in moving away from oil and gas as quickly as possible and we should facilitate it as soon as possible without fucking our economy.
I do not get what the motivation is to nobble solar and wind. It is a part of a balanced energy portfolio
If your funders are oil rich foreign billionaires.......
Make no mistake, this is a pivotal day in this century. Pulling the plug on Ukraine, US disinvesting in European security, and the big powers redrawing the boundaries of smaller ones. A new reality faces Europe and it’s going to require urgent investment in defence & security.
Reminding us this is exactly what Trump did when he negotiated the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Did they have to pick Munich for this security conference?
The current “negotiations” Trump is entering feel more Molotov-Ribbentrop than Munich, with Trump being the complacent and naive Stalin and Putin the Hitler.
Stalin was not naive. He knew the war was coming and got something out of the deal.
Yes and no. Stalin knew that war was coming eventually. But, he gave Germany some tremendous advantages, in terms of supplying oil and food, and was wilfully blind to the coming storm, in 1941.
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
Is that what Rupe is on about? M&S food and some sort of takeaway meal?
There ya go again. Laugh at all the poor hardworking Brits and scoff at Reform
This shit is gonna devour you
Actually I was criticising Rupert Lowe for not making clear what he was moaning about.
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
I think one of the reasons hotels like housing asylum seekers - apart from the stable income, of course - is that they only do weekly cleaning / sheet changing.
Bad news for death and destruction fans this morning.
Well done Trump.
SKS fans why has your boy promised £300Bn to Ukraine but is cutting disability payments at home.
Presumably all the Ukranians over here have no excuse not to return home now
"Well done Trump"?
You do realise that the actions of the US government are actually massively destabilisng to the world, and are more likely to lead to wider conflict?
This is appeasement Mk 2.
He is an appeaser, so he's happy with that.
Boo hoo
Your boy that you assured us was going to win
Hasnt
So I take it you are on Putin's side? You want war and destruction? You want the imperialism and fascism ro sweep over Ukraine and eastern Europe?
Just because you hate Starmer?
Side of a more peaceful world and a stop to pissing our taxes into a unwinnable war black hole.
Putins an arse but him not winning was just an impossible wet dream
Have you not noticed how Russia has spent three years not winning, with the west doing the absolute minimum possible to help Ukraine?
The concept of 'Russia stronk' died out in March 2022. They are easily defeatable. But the political will to do so isn't currently there. This makes wider war much more likely.
But it seems you support both Hamas and Putin: what is it about imperialism and fascism, mass murder and anti-Semitism that you like so much?
I support an end to the killing in both conflicts.You support kids been shot in the head as long as there only Arabs.
Seems you just can't get enough death and destruction
Your goodie baddie and Western World police depiction of world affairs is over for the next 4 years
You're a liar.
You support death and destruction, when it's inflicted upon people you hate (Jews, Ukrainians).
Biden has to shoulder some responsibility here. A friend who's an expert in US history said close to the outset that he thought the US would provide enough support to stop Ukraine losing but not enough to end the war. His reading was that the US wanted Russia tied up in a long conflict and had no humanitarian considerations. That's what seems to have played out, though in hindsight the only point at which it could have been ended swiftly was right at the beginning when the Russian tanks were stuck on the roads.
Biden does have some of the blame on his shoulders.
But in his defence, it was not as though the GOP were screaming for him to support Ukraine. In fact, they were screaming for him *not* to support Ukraine. That made it much harder for Biden to support Ukraine much more than he did.
Make no mistake, this is a pivotal day in this century. Pulling the plug on Ukraine, US disinvesting in European security, and the big powers redrawing the boundaries of smaller ones. A new reality faces Europe and it’s going to require urgent investment in defence & security.
Reminding us this is exactly what Trump did when he negotiated the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Did they have to pick Munich for this security conference?
The current “negotiations” Trump is entering feel more Molotov-Ribbentrop than Munich, with Trump being the complacent and naive Stalin and Putin the Hitler.
Stalin was not naive. He knew the war was coming and got something out of the deal.
Yes and no. Stalin knew that war was coming eventually. But, he gave Germany some tremendous advantages, in terms of supplying oil and food, and was wilfully blind to the coming storm, in 1941.
IIRC accounts from the time suggest that Stalin was completely blind-sided when Germany attacked the Soviet Union: Locked himself away for days - the Politburo had to go in and convince him to come out & start taking decisions.
That's not the point, is it? Hotels have cleaners. Or is Rupe just complaining that refugees eat in their rooms? Heaven knows there are criticisms to be made but is this really one of them?
Perhaps the asylum seekers should be prevented from eating in their rooms? Should we fund them going down to the Hotel restaurant? 3 course meal? wine?
just asking....
A lot of PBers don’t understand ordinary people. On an ordinary income
For them, to loaf about a nice 4 star hotel for weeks on end with nothing to do but eat nice marks and Spencer food - and then get it all cleaned by cleaners - is a dream. That will never come true
So, yes, tiny examples like this are grievously insulting to millions of Brits
Is that what Rupe is on about? M&S food and some sort of takeaway meal?
There ya go again. Laugh at all the poor hardworking Brits and scoff at Reform
This shit is gonna devour you
Actually I was criticising Rupert Lowe for not making clear what he was moaning about.
Make no mistake, this is a pivotal day in this century. Pulling the plug on Ukraine, US disinvesting in European security, and the big powers redrawing the boundaries of smaller ones. A new reality faces Europe and it’s going to require urgent investment in defence & security.
Reminding us this is exactly what Trump did when he negotiated the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Did they have to pick Munich for this security conference?
The current “negotiations” Trump is entering feel more Molotov-Ribbentrop than Munich, with Trump being the complacent and naive Stalin and Putin the Hitler.
Stalin was not naive. He knew the war was coming and got something out of the deal.
Yes and no. Stalin knew that war was coming eventually. But, he gave Germany some tremendous advantages, in terms of supplying oil and food, and was wilfully blind to the coming storm, in 1941.
IIRC contemporaneous accounts suggest that Stalin was completely blind-sided when Germany attacked the Soviet Union: Locked himself away for days - the Politburo had to go in and convince him to come out & start taking decisions.
I think the timing of it was what through him. Maybe he allowed himself to believe that the pact was real? Or maybe it was just the fact that the front was so rapidly collapsing (see also Paris, 1940).
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
Hang on a minute. You (forgive me if I'm recalling this wrongly) have passionately defended 20mph zones on the grounds of safety, as well as ULEZ zones on the grounds of pollution danger. Yet you're happy with a Wild West situation in the setting up of massive battery stations, when one recently caught fire in California, causing skyscraper flames that couldn't be extinguished and despoiling the country for miles around. So do your lot actually give a shit about safety, or is safety just a weapon to be deployed in the defence of your agenda, happily ignored when it suits you?
Unpopular opinion on here but I don't think it's fair to describe peace talks/deal in Ukraine as appeasement.
There was lots of fighting done to get to this point, and it looks like both Ukraine and Russia have suffered massive massive losses.
I can't pretend to know what's in Putins head, but if he is in anyway rationale he must see that further military adventures in Europe are going to be very costly. If a peace deal involved European troops in Ukraine to guarantee it, surely that further raises costs of breaking the rules. But its pretty shit for the Ukranians who are now part of Russia....
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
A indirect way of nobbling solar and wind, I guess. Same with making new electricity transmission more expensive by burying cables.
I am not one of these eco loons who demand net zero now, but I can see the sense in moving away from oil and gas as quickly as possible and we should facilitate it as soon as possible without fucking our economy.
I do not get what the motivation is to nobble solar and wind. It is a part of a balanced energy portfolio
There are votes in being against Green Crap and also in NIMBYISM in communities that think they will/may get battery storage (and associated solar or wind nearby, if not already there).
Agree on the mix and batteries will be a big part of that. In most cases, it shouldn't be hard to shield battery installations from view, I would have thought - ring of trees round the outside - but I'm no expert. Pylons to the site obviously a harder thing to hide.
FWIW, there are some proposed schemes near me and I'm all in favour. Given when I moved here there was a pleasant country walk from my in-laws' that offered views of three coal-fired power stations* (all three at once, from one viewpoint, on a clear day) I have a slightly different perspective on what ugly power infrastructure looks like.
*only the greenwashed Drax now remains; Eggborough and Ferrybridge are gone
BBC going big on Reeves exaggerating her time at BOE and something to do with expenses….
Two stories at the top of the BBC news site on Reeves, based on BBC investigations, one on exaggerations about her time at BoE and one on possibly dodgy expenses claims when she was at HBOS. It's a pretty devastating set of headlines. I think it may carry more weight than all the previous "Labour scandals" that fizzled out (dressgate etc.).
Some good economic news for Rachel Reeves. Real wage growth has been strong.
"Annual growth in real terms, adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers' housing costs (CPIH), was 2.5% for regular pay and 2.4% for total pay.
Annual average regular earnings growth for the private sector was 6.0%, while for the public sector, it was 4.1%."
Hang on, private sector pay growing more than public sector? Have I been misinformed by people on here? What about the incoming Labour government caving in to all those excessive public sector pay demands?
Yes I did think it was worth including that snippet
As harsh as this seems, and as brutal as this seems, Trump and the US have a point here, at least for the short-term.
As I see it, there's always been four options
1) Give Ukraine the tools needed, and frankly the NATO troops to kick Russia out, escalating the war. 2) Give Ukraine just enough to hold off, but not really make any end to the war possible. 3) Do a deal and Russia get something out of it 4) Let Russia Win.
What the US have done is say they don't support 2 anymore, and 1 was always off the table. In terms of bloodshed, it's the best option. In terms of Geo-politics and the future, it's not looking good, but then Russia is always now going to be threat to Europe one way or another.
What we can't do is turn the clock back to 2020 which I think what a lot of people want to happen.
Unpopular opinion on here but I don't think it's fair to describe peace talks/deal in Ukraine as appeasement.
There was lots of fighting done to get to this point, and it looks like both Ukraine and Russia have suffered massive massive losses.
I can't pretend to know what's in Putins head, but if he is in anyway rationale he must see that further military adventures in Europe are going to be very costly. If a peace deal involved European troops in Ukraine to guarantee it, surely that further raises costs of breaking the rules. But its pretty shit for the Ukranians who are now part of Russia....
Your assumption of what is in Putins head is the problem.
He will think further military adventures will be tolerated by the West. He does not give a damn about the human cost, it is all about expanding the map.
Ah yes, the man who advises our government to pay Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands who also just happens to be working for the Mauritian government at the same time ought to be above criticism according to these loons. Give me strength.
If the man wanted to remain in post as Attorney General then he should have recused himself from any legal process where the government was dealing with a current or former client. Not to do so displays an astonishing political naivete frankly. Odds on he gets the boot in the next re-shuffle I suspect.
'Reeves is Safe' - how many times can the header have been out of date so quickly?
Not sure what the value for Starmer is in keeping her on. He's not big on loyalty and she appears a liability. Suspect he'll have to rethink that reshuffle again,
Without the Munich incident, BBC would be leading on Reeves and her grubby time at the banks.
Unpopular opinion on here but I don't think it's fair to describe peace talks/deal in Ukraine as appeasement.
There was lots of fighting done to get to this point, and it looks like both Ukraine and Russia have suffered massive massive losses.
I can't pretend to know what's in Putins head, but if he is in anyway rationale he must see that further military adventures in Europe are going to be very costly. If a peace deal involved European troops in Ukraine to guarantee it, surely that further raises costs of breaking the rules. But its pretty shit for the Ukranians who are now part of Russia....
You miss the way Putin works. Military expansionism is only one route: he also favours political expansionism. As we see in Belarus, it works very well for him. And if you look at the likes of Hungary and Romania, you can see him trying similar techniques.
What we are seeing from Trump et al is exactly appeasement. Worse, Trump may head to the sort of deal that Hitler and Stalin did over Poland...
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
A indirect way of nobbling solar and wind, I guess. Same with making new electricity transmission more expensive by burying cables.
I am not one of these eco loons who demand net zero now, but I can see the sense in moving away from oil and gas as quickly as possible and we should facilitate it as soon as possible without fucking our economy.
I do not get what the motivation is to nobble solar and wind. It is a part of a balanced energy portfolio
Umm, I think that is enough to make you an eco loon in the eyes of folk like Luckyguy1983. Especially given that literally nobody is demanding net zero now.
As harsh as this seems, and as brutal as this seems, Trump and the US have a point here, at least for the short-term.
As I see it, there's always been four options
1) Give Ukraine the tools needed, and frankly the NATO troops to kick Russia out, escalating the war. 2) Give Ukraine just enough to hold off, but not really make any end to the war possible. 3) Do a deal and Russia get something out of it 4) Let Russia Win.
What the US have done is say they don't support 2 anymore, and 1 was always off the table. In terms of bloodshed, it's the best option. In terms of Geo-politics and the future, it's not looking good, but then Russia is always now going to be threat to Europe one way or another.
What we can't do is turn the clock back to 2020 which I think what a lot of people want to happen.
It also very unclear what the US means by a deal: freeze the current line of conflict? Have Russia give up the Donbas in return for Ukranian territorial control over parts of Kursk & any claim over Crimea?
I suspect the Ukranians would be happy to go for the latter, but it will be unacceptable to Putin. Which is going to make things a little awkward for Mr “Art of the Deal”.
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
Hang on a minute. You (forgive me if I'm recalling this wrongly) have passionately defended 20mph zones on the grounds of safety, as well as ULEZ zones on the grounds of pollution danger. Yet you're happy with a Wild West situation in the setting up of massive battery stations, when one recently caught fire in California, causing skyscraper flames that couldn't be extinguished and despoiling the country for miles around. So do your lot actually give a shit about safety, or is safety just a weapon to be deployed in the defence of your agenda, happily ignored when it suits you?
What's your position on nuclear power stations? 3 mile island, Chenobyl, Fukushima all that? Oil and gas? Piper Alpha etc
It won't be a "Wild West" situation, large BESS will have to conform to regulations on design and operation - safety.
UK see 1600 RTA fatalities per year plus serious injuries, a large number due to people driving too fast for the conditions, dangerously, carelessly or inattentively. UK workrelated inc members of the public around 200, there is probably some crossover with RTAs. 20mph limits do something to address RTA KSIs, not as much as properly policing and sanctioning drivers would, but then it would be politically impossible to ban all drivers whose standard of driving is unsafe/below an acceptable standard because there are so many of them!!
BBC going big on Reeves exaggerating her time at BOE and something to do with expenses….
Two stories at the top of the BBC news site on Reeves, based on BBC investigations, one on exaggerations about her time at BoE and one on possibly dodgy expenses claims when she was at HBOS. It's a pretty devastating set of headlines. I think it may carry more weight than all the previous "Labour scandals" that fizzled out (dressgate etc.).
Someone is gunning for her internally, clearly. Wonder who?
'Reeves is Safe' - how many times can the header have been out of date so quickly?
Not sure what the value for Starmer is in keeping her on. He's not big on loyalty and she appears a liability. Suspect he'll have to rethink that reshuffle again,
Without the Munich incident, BBC would be leading on Reeves and her grubby time at the banks.
The fact she lied about being at the BoE for six years rather than ten is old hat. The BBC revelation it was actually five-and-a-half years is very thin.
Seems like they just wanted an exclusive. Or, maybe they know she is for the chop and want the credit.
BBC going big on Reeves exaggerating her time at BOE and something to do with expenses….
Two stories at the top of the BBC news site on Reeves, based on BBC investigations, one on exaggerations about her time at BoE and one on possibly dodgy expenses claims when she was at HBOS. It's a pretty devastating set of headlines. I think it may carry more weight than all the previous "Labour scandals" that fizzled out (dressgate etc.).
The one on exaggerating her time at BoE also reveals that she left HBOS with a compromise agreement. The BBC says HBOS used it when senior managers were made redundant. I don't know if that is the only situation where HBOS used such agreements, but they are generally used whenever an employer wants to get rid of an employee without risking a claim for unfair dismissal. This is also mentioned in the expenses article. It seems the BBC has been supplied with a statement from her lawyer saying that no allegations of wrongdoing or misconduct were mentioned by the HBOS HR team during this process. In my experience, such allegations are usually conveyed to the employee by their manager and are not communicated to the employee's lawyer by the employer. So it is certainly possible that she was sacked over the expenses issue.
BBC going big on Reeves exaggerating her time at BOE and something to do with expenses….
Two stories at the top of the BBC news site on Reeves, based on BBC investigations, one on exaggerations about her time at BoE and one on possibly dodgy expenses claims when she was at HBOS. It's a pretty devastating set of headlines. I think it may carry more weight than all the previous "Labour scandals" that fizzled out (dressgate etc.).
Someone is gunning for her internally, clearly. Wonder who?
Streeting going for the Chancellorship perhaps?
Ah, I missed the expenses one.
"Gillett also made another claim about Reeves's time at the bank from 2006 to 2009, writing that she: "Nearly got sacked due to an expenses scandal where the 3 senior managers were all signing off each others expenses."
This was doing the rounds on Twitter. I didn't post it on PB for obvious reasons. The BBC's investigation looks damning.
BBC going big on Reeves exaggerating her time at BOE and something to do with expenses….
Two stories at the top of the BBC news site on Reeves, based on BBC investigations, one on exaggerations about her time at BoE and one on possibly dodgy expenses claims when she was at HBOS. It's a pretty devastating set of headlines. I think it may carry more weight than all the previous "Labour scandals" that fizzled out (dressgate etc.).
Someone is gunning for her internally, clearly. Wonder who?
BBC going big on Reeves exaggerating her time at BOE and something to do with expenses….
Two stories at the top of the BBC news site on Reeves, based on BBC investigations, one on exaggerations about her time at BoE and one on possibly dodgy expenses claims when she was at HBOS. It's a pretty devastating set of headlines. I think it may carry more weight than all the previous "Labour scandals" that fizzled out (dressgate etc.).
Someone is gunning for her internally, clearly. Wonder who?
Streeting going for the Chancellorship perhaps?
The BBC reporting appears to be down to their own investigations, contacting her former colleagues. I don't see it's evidence that someone is "gunning for her internally".
As harsh as this seems, and as brutal as this seems, Trump and the US have a point here, at least for the short-term.
As I see it, there's always been four options
1) Give Ukraine the tools needed, and frankly the NATO troops to kick Russia out, escalating the war. 2) Give Ukraine just enough to hold off, but not really make any end to the war possible. 3) Do a deal and Russia get something out of it 4) Let Russia Win.
What the US have done is say they don't support 2 anymore, and 1 was always off the table. In terms of bloodshed, it's the best option. In terms of Geo-politics and the future, it's not looking good, but then Russia is always now going to be threat to Europe one way or another.
What we can't do is turn the clock back to 2020 which I think what a lot of people want to happen.
I think there is a lot of sense in this. Europe can't expect USA to do what Europe won't start doing for itself. If for the last three years European NATO countries had been pleading with USA to join them in their massive ongoing military operations with the Ukrainians it would be different. And if before this started European NATO states had united in a plan that an attack on Ukraine was to be deemed an attack on NATO territory it would be different.
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
Hang on a minute. You (forgive me if I'm recalling this wrongly) have passionately defended 20mph zones on the grounds of safety, as well as ULEZ zones on the grounds of pollution danger. Yet you're happy with a Wild West situation in the setting up of massive battery stations, when one recently caught fire in California, causing skyscraper flames that couldn't be extinguished and despoiling the country for miles around. So do your lot actually give a shit about safety, or is safety just a weapon to be deployed in the defence of your agenda, happily ignored when it suits you?
I haven't seen the original Reform quote so maybe I am being unfair, but the original post just said 'Banning battery storage' so I am relying on that. I hope that is not what Reform are proposing.
Nobody here said they were in favour of unsafe battery storage, they were just commenting upon banning battery storage (safe or otherwise). You brought in the unsafe element to the discussion. All energy production is dangerous and has environmental impacts, particularly when it goes wrong and nuclear, solar, wind, etc, etc tend to have a much better safety and environmental record than traditional energy production. That doesn't mean they don't have any impact or go wrong, sometime spectacularly. You try to mitigate that.
The alternative is no energy production whatsoever.
BBC going big on Reeves exaggerating her time at BOE and something to do with expenses….
Two stories at the top of the BBC news site on Reeves, based on BBC investigations, one on exaggerations about her time at BoE and one on possibly dodgy expenses claims when she was at HBOS. It's a pretty devastating set of headlines. I think it may carry more weight than all the previous "Labour scandals" that fizzled out (dressgate etc.).
Someone is gunning for her internally, clearly. Wonder who?
Probably not Starmer. Listening to Reeves this morning, she makes Starmer sound like the greatest orator of our times. So on the basis of "if you want to look thin, hang around fat people", she's safe.
As harsh as this seems, and as brutal as this seems, Trump and the US have a point here, at least for the short-term.
As I see it, there's always been four options
1) Give Ukraine the tools needed, and frankly the NATO troops to kick Russia out, escalating the war. 2) Give Ukraine just enough to hold off, but not really make any end to the war possible. 3) Do a deal and Russia get something out of it 4) Let Russia Win.
What the US have done is say they don't support 2 anymore, and 1 was always off the table. In terms of bloodshed, it's the best option. In terms of Geo-politics and the future, it's not looking good, but then Russia is always now going to be threat to Europe one way or another.
What we can't do is turn the clock back to 2020 which I think what a lot of people want to happen.
No-one trusts Trump to distinguish between options 3 and 4. Tellingly Putin thinks he's on course for a total surrender by Ukraine. Unless Trump surprises everyone the choice is actually between allowing Ukraine to hold on at little cost to the USA or allow defeat. I don't think Trump does have a point, either moral or geopolitical.
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
A indirect way of nobbling solar and wind, I guess. Same with making new electricity transmission more expensive by burying cables.
I am not one of these eco loons who demand net zero now, but I can see the sense in moving away from oil and gas as quickly as possible and we should facilitate it as soon as possible without fucking our economy.
I do not get what the motivation is to nobble solar and wind. It is a part of a balanced energy portfolio
Umm, I think that is enough to make you an eco loon in the eyes of folk like Luckyguy1983. Especially given that literally nobody is demanding net zero now.
The problem with Energy production PLCs is the senior leadership who appear to only be interested in how much they can trouser in bonuses and share options before they get paid off. So no Energy company seems to have a vision beyond the share price in the next 3-5 years. All this delaying investment, reverse-ferreting, just results in a massive increase in costs and years of delay. Projects just end up being re-engineered several times over but delivered once.
BBC going big on Reeves exaggerating her time at BOE and something to do with expenses….
Two stories at the top of the BBC news site on Reeves, based on BBC investigations, one on exaggerations about her time at BoE and one on possibly dodgy expenses claims when she was at HBOS. It's a pretty devastating set of headlines. I think it may carry more weight than all the previous "Labour scandals" that fizzled out (dressgate etc.).
Hmm… it does certainly feel like this might have some length to run too. The expenses story has a lot of “we don’t know this yet” style reporting - it feels like they’re fishing.
I don’t think Reeves has impressed, and actually I think one of the issues is that presentationally she’s too similar to Starmer. That was fine in opposition but he could do with a foil. Another face that isn’t just growth, duty, studious, serious. A bit more dynamic.
It would hurt him to ditch her so early. But she is, I think, the biggest drag on the government’s fortunes.
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
A indirect way of nobbling solar and wind, I guess. Same with making new electricity transmission more expensive by burying cables.
I am not one of these eco loons who demand net zero now, but I can see the sense in moving away from oil and gas as quickly as possible and we should facilitate it as soon as possible without fucking our economy.
I do not get what the motivation is to nobble solar and wind. It is a part of a balanced energy portfolio
Umm, I think that is enough to make you an eco loon in the eyes of folk like Luckyguy1983. Especially given that literally nobody is demanding net zero now.
The problem with Energy production PLCs is the senior leadership who appear to only be interested in how much they can trouser in bonuses and share options before they get paid off. So no Energy company seems to have a vision beyond the share price in the next 3-5 years. All this delaying investment, reverse-ferreting, just results in a massive increase in costs and years of delay. Projects just end up being re-engineered several times over but delivered once.
Sounds exactly like Governments who are only interested in what ever will get them reelected in 3-5 years.
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
A indirect way of nobbling solar and wind, I guess. Same with making new electricity transmission more expensive by burying cables.
I am not one of these eco loons who demand net zero now, but I can see the sense in moving away from oil and gas as quickly as possible and we should facilitate it as soon as possible without fucking our economy.
I do not get what the motivation is to nobble solar and wind. It is a part of a balanced energy portfolio
Umm, I think that is enough to make you an eco loon in the eyes of folk like Luckyguy1983. Especially given that literally nobody is demanding net zero now.
The problem with Energy production PLCs is the senior leadership who appear to only be interested in how much they can trouser in bonuses and share options before they get paid off. So no Energy company seems to have a vision beyond the share price in the next 3-5 years. All this delaying investment, reverse-ferreting, just results in a massive increase in costs and years of delay. Projects just end up being re-engineered several times over but delivered once.
I'd further suggest that any company board that proposes share buybacks should be summarily dismissed. If there is spare capital then it should be used for investment in the company, a share buyback is an admission that the board do not know how to grow or improve the company's productivity.
-3.2% business investment in Q4, dragging down the annual rate from 4.4% growth to -0.7%, if that's not the warning sign flashing red I don't know what is.
Unpopular opinion on here but I don't think it's fair to describe peace talks/deal in Ukraine as appeasement.
There was lots of fighting done to get to this point, and it looks like both Ukraine and Russia have suffered massive massive losses.
I can't pretend to know what's in Putins head, but if he is in anyway rationale he must see that further military adventures in Europe are going to be very costly. If a peace deal involved European troops in Ukraine to guarantee it, surely that further raises costs of breaking the rules. But its pretty shit for the Ukranians who are now part of Russia....
Your assumption of what is in Putins head is the problem.
He will think further military adventures will be tolerated by the West. He does not give a damn about the human cost, it is all about expanding the map.
But like... this military incursion wasn't tolerated? As in Europe (and US) mobilised enormous resources to thwart his invasion and are now rearming?
BBC going big on Reeves exaggerating her time at BOE and something to do with expenses….
Two stories at the top of the BBC news site on Reeves, based on BBC investigations, one on exaggerations about her time at BoE and one on possibly dodgy expenses claims when she was at HBOS. It's a pretty devastating set of headlines. I think it may carry more weight than all the previous "Labour scandals" that fizzled out (dressgate etc.).
Someone is gunning for her internally, clearly. Wonder who?
Streeting going for the Chancellorship perhaps?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I'm also not sure how that happens innocently. How does four and a half years become, in your own head, "a decade"? Who misremembers four and a half years as being a decade?
If they said they were banning subsidies on these things, then OK. Free market rulez & all that. But forcing the grid to bury cables? Banning battery storage? Every policy here is going to raise bills, not lower them!
It seems that if you’re pro-development the only party you can reasonably vote for right now (no matter how flawed) is the Labour Party.
What is the rationale for banning battery storage ? Inefficiency ? Safety ?
A indirect way of nobbling solar and wind, I guess. Same with making new electricity transmission more expensive by burying cables.
I am not one of these eco loons who demand net zero now, but I can see the sense in moving away from oil and gas as quickly as possible and we should facilitate it as soon as possible without fucking our economy.
I do not get what the motivation is to nobble solar and wind. It is a part of a balanced energy portfolio
Umm, I think that is enough to make you an eco loon in the eyes of folk like Luckyguy1983. Especially given that literally nobody is demanding net zero now.
The problem with Energy production PLCs is the senior leadership who appear to only be interested in how much they can trouser in bonuses and share options before they get paid off. So no Energy company seems to have a vision beyond the share price in the next 3-5 years. All this delaying investment, reverse-ferreting, just results in a massive increase in costs and years of delay. Projects just end up being re-engineered several times over but delivered once.
Sounds exactly like Governments who are only interested in what ever will get them reelected in 3-5 years.
Similar issue, though at least they want to get re-elected rather than planning for their exit.
Comments
Obviously we can't tell the US how to deploy its assets.
Others due for a rethink include Tory politicians forever slashing defence, and all the armchair experts who say Britain should buy arms off the shelf rather than maintain domestic manufacturing capacity – fine until the seller stops selling.
Not to mention anyone who has ever posted to pb the phrase Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Another is this, and it will be very tempting: that the minimum rights and privileges of refugees and asylum seekers anywhere in the world are to be identical. Just because you get to UK/NZ/Germany/Canada will give you neither more nor fewer rights and privileges that you have in Chad or Bangladesh. Tent. Three meals a day unless Musk says otherwise. Primary education for children unless USAID stops it. Flight home ASAP.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/jan/07/german-election-2025-opinion-poll-tracker-bundestag-chancellor
Happily, the Census for England, Northern Ireland, and Scotland (2022 Census) did ask about "main language".
So it's rather easy to find data for England:
English as main language 90.8%
Celtic languages and Scots 0.02%
Johnny Foreigner languages:
Other European 4.7%
Asian/Mid East 4.1%
African 0.4%
Others 0.1% (inc. Sign)
Scotland:
English as main language 94.5%
Scots 0.25%
Gaelic 0.05%
Sign: 0.05%
Others 5.2%
NI:
English as main language: 95.4%
Polish: 1.1%
Lithuanian 0.5%
Irish: 0.3%
Romanian: 0.3%
Arabic: 0.2%
Bulgarian 0.2%
Others: 1.8% (inc. Ulster Scots)
However, for the Republic (2022), the stats tell us:
Speak a language other than English OR Irish at home: 15.1%
Speak Irish "outside the education system": 1.5%
So does that mean only (100-(15.1+1.5)) 83.4% speak English at home?
And for Wales:
English OR Welsh as main language: 96.7%
Other European lingo: 1.8%
Asian/Mid East: 1.4%
African 0.1%
Others: 0.07%
and also, separately:
"Able to speak" Welsh 17.8%
So does that mean (96.7-17.8) 78.9% speak English at home? Throw me a bone here!
This shit is gonna devour you
If this place cannot laugh at the underclass where can ?
What we seem to be seeing, given the increase in union power, unjustified minimum wage increases and labour market regulation, is the return of a rigid, insider-outsider labour market, similar to those we see in say France. Those in permanent, protected jobs do much better than their productivity indicates they should, because it is so difficult to fire them, while those out of work or trying to break in find it extremely challenging because employers are more reluctant to hire as they are uncertain about their productivity.
It's a recipe for a segregated, stagnant labour market with high unemployment but good short-term wage growth if you're middle-aged and in permanent employment.
I'm glad I'm not young and trying to get my first job though.
Cannot say I care greatly. I doubt she is the only one who ever did it anyway
All that matters is how good she is in the job given it is one of patronage.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rachel-reeves-exaggerated-bank-of-england-experience-on-her-cv/ar-AA1yY6zt?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=a534dd62f91a4292a3bf8c2d8367aa5a&ei=17
https://preview.redd.it/a-cool-guide-to-anacyclosis-v0-2neyqy2mmszd1.jpeg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=a1761f7f2e3f6e63603d5a49afc6a7157a72eac8
As per Polybius. Not to be confused with Polybius. And especially not Polyus
Unless NATO European nations and Canada significantly increased defence spending to enable Zelensky to continue the war without any US funding
This is slightly complicated by Welsh being taught in schools but a bunch of schoolchildren who will soon forget how to discuss la plume de ma tante can safely be ignored. In my limited experience of dealing with large Welsh organisations, they have specialist translation units.
To be fair, I'm sure the US was never going to put 'boots on the ground' in Ukraine, and neither was Western Europe/Canada. Poland might have.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd9x22dj423t
It was a Trades Union Demo, not a Just Stop Oil protest.
And why has reshuffle talk started a week after the Premier League transfer window closed? Does Yvette Cooper share an agent with Eastenders star Jarrod Bowen?
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/west-ham-jarrod-bowen-eastenders-cameo-40th-anniversary-b1210800.html
ETA I still have a Queen Vic beermat from the BBC's prelaunch publicity for Eastenders. I've never watched the show, not even when my mate's daughter's friend was one of its main stars.
This means Hamas killing Israelis is a-okay, as Israelis are Jewish. And Zelenskyy is Jewish, and therefore obviously on the wrong side of history. And Russia has been historically fairly open to anti-Semitism, so they're the good guys.
Which is all odd, considering how many Jews were involved with developing socialism and socialist theory...
Wars take time, it isn't over yet.
I do not get what the motivation is to nobble solar and wind. It is a part of a balanced energy portfolio
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/hamas-says-it-will-release-israeli-hostages-as-planned-amid-fears-over-collapse-of-ceasefire/ar-AA1yXUp9?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=07f3886c24714204ef0e8ab29fba2a45&ei=53
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99xm474pj7o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgznp16wkgo
There is a theory that much Middle East antisemitism can be traced back to Nazi propaganda broadcasts in the region, aimed at stirring up nationalist resentment of British occupiers.
I'd point out that an awful lot of fires in diesel and petrol cars happen in older cars. When comparing such things, you need to compare cars of similar ages and sizes. Comparing a general car fleet with an average age of about nine years, with a much younger electric car fleet, is incorrect.
Ditto safety.
A friend who's an expert in US history said close to the outset that he thought the US would provide enough support to stop Ukraine losing but not enough to end the war.
His reading was that the US wanted Russia tied up in a long conflict and had no humanitarian considerations.
That's what seems to have played out, though in hindsight the only point at which it could have been ended swiftly was right at the beginning when the Russian tanks were stuck on the roads.
(The picture looks fine to me, though.)
But in his defence, it was not as though the GOP were screaming for him to support Ukraine. In fact, they were screaming for him *not* to support Ukraine. That made it much harder for Biden to support Ukraine much more than he did.
There was lots of fighting done to get to this point, and it looks like both Ukraine and Russia have suffered massive massive losses.
I can't pretend to know what's in Putins head, but if he is in anyway rationale he must see that further military adventures in Europe are going to be very costly. If a peace deal involved European troops in Ukraine to guarantee it, surely that further raises costs of breaking the rules. But its pretty shit for the Ukranians who are now part of Russia....
Agree on the mix and batteries will be a big part of that. In most cases, it shouldn't be hard to shield battery installations from view, I would have thought - ring of trees round the outside - but I'm no expert. Pylons to the site obviously a harder thing to hide.
FWIW, there are some proposed schemes near me and I'm all in favour. Given when I moved here there was a pleasant country walk from my in-laws' that offered views of three coal-fired power stations* (all three at once, from one viewpoint, on a clear day) I have a slightly different perspective on what ugly power infrastructure looks like.
*only the greenwashed Drax now remains; Eggborough and Ferrybridge are gone
As I see it, there's always been four options
1) Give Ukraine the tools needed, and frankly the NATO troops to kick Russia out, escalating the war.
2) Give Ukraine just enough to hold off, but not really make any end to the war possible.
3) Do a deal and Russia get something out of it
4) Let Russia Win.
What the US have done is say they don't support 2 anymore, and 1 was always off the table. In terms of bloodshed, it's the best option. In terms of Geo-politics and the future, it's not looking good, but then Russia is always now going to be threat to Europe one way or another.
What we can't do is turn the clock back to 2020 which I think what a lot of people want to happen.
He will think further military adventures will be tolerated by the West. He does not give a damn about the human cost, it is all about expanding the map.
Ah yes, the man who advises our government to pay Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands who also just happens to be working for the Mauritian government at the same time ought to be above criticism according to these loons. Give me strength.
If the man wanted to remain in post as Attorney General then he should have recused himself from any legal process where the government was dealing with a current or former client. Not to do so displays an astonishing political naivete frankly. Odds on he gets the boot in the next re-shuffle I suspect.
Not sure what the value for Starmer is in keeping her on. He's not big on loyalty and she appears a liability. Suspect he'll have to rethink that reshuffle again,
Without the Munich incident, BBC would be leading on Reeves and her grubby time at the banks.
What we are seeing from Trump et al is exactly appeasement. Worse, Trump may head to the sort of deal that Hitler and Stalin did over Poland...
https://m.bild.de/regional/muenchen/muenchen-auto-faehrt-in-menschengruppe-mehrere-verletzte-67adbe661371a020a1013b96
I suspect the Ukranians would be happy to go for the latter, but it will be unacceptable to Putin. Which is going to make things a little awkward for Mr “Art of the Deal”.
Oil and gas? Piper Alpha etc
It won't be a "Wild West" situation, large BESS will have to conform to regulations on design and operation - safety.
UK see 1600 RTA fatalities per year plus serious injuries, a large number due to people driving too fast for the conditions, dangerously, carelessly or inattentively. UK workrelated inc members of the public around 200, there is probably some crossover with RTAs.
20mph limits do something to address RTA KSIs, not as much as properly policing and sanctioning drivers would, but then it would be politically impossible to ban all drivers whose standard of driving is unsafe/below an acceptable standard because there are so many of them!!
Congressman Robert Garcia: Well, he is a dick.
https://x.com/RepRobertGarcia/status/1889767639754445038
Streeting going for the Chancellorship perhaps?
Seems like they just wanted an exclusive. Or, maybe they know she is for the chop and want the credit.
"Gillett also made another claim about Reeves's time at the bank from 2006 to 2009, writing that she: "Nearly got sacked due to an expenses scandal where the 3 senior managers were all signing off each others expenses."
This was doing the rounds on Twitter. I didn't post it on PB for obvious reasons. The BBC's investigation looks damning.
His simple guide of tips for reporters and associated flint knappers is a classic:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2011/jan/19/manifesto-simple-scribe-commandments-journalists
Nobody here said they were in favour of unsafe battery storage, they were just commenting upon banning battery storage (safe or otherwise). You brought in the unsafe element to the discussion. All energy production is dangerous and has environmental impacts, particularly when it goes wrong and nuclear, solar, wind, etc, etc tend to have a much better safety and environmental record than traditional energy production. That doesn't mean they don't have any impact or go wrong, sometime spectacularly. You try to mitigate that.
The alternative is no energy production whatsoever.
"Yes it's true. This man has no dick."
All this delaying investment, reverse-ferreting, just results in a massive increase in costs and years of delay. Projects just end up being re-engineered several times over but delivered once.
So well worth throwing away two hundreds of democracy for.
I don’t think Reeves has impressed, and actually I think one of the issues is that presentationally she’s too similar to Starmer. That was fine in opposition but he could do with a foil. Another face that isn’t just growth, duty, studious, serious. A bit more dynamic.
It would hurt him to ditch her so early. But she is, I think, the biggest drag on the government’s fortunes.
That will do for Trump far more than any of the issues on here people obsess about.
He nailed his mast to solving cost of living. If he fails he's done. Inflation is creeping back up and now egg prices are on the rise.
I mean it is hardly Blur v Oasis, but all the same, they constantly need a new front man.
If there is spare capital then it should be used for investment in the company, a share buyback is an admission that the board do not know how to grow or improve the company's productivity.
BREAKING: The number of people on NHS waiting lists in England has fallen for the fourth month in a row, new figures show.
https://x.com/skynews/status/1889987457141063896?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
I'm also not sure how that happens innocently. How does four and a half years become, in your own head, "a decade"? Who misremembers four and a half years as being a decade?