Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
It’s in the North. We don’t invest there, because.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
SNP also forecast to lose 9 MSPs, main gainers Reform
Scotland is the bellwether here. Starver's Labour is headed for national and total wipe-out
Certainly where there is a viable left-wing alternative. The curious thing is why the Lib Dems aren't doing any better in England, but that might because they don't offer anything radical. At least with the SNP they offer something material - independence.
Left/right is the wrong frame. A sectarian analysis is more useful in the modern UK and can explain Labour's troubles everywhere from inner Birmingham to outer Newcastle.
Vigilante fathers vow to patrol Birmingham streets and make 'citizens' arrests after teen boy stabbed to death and four women attacked
I am not entirely sure your dystopian wet dream exists yet.
Bad stuff happens in rural areas and generations of white men assaulting and raping young women and girls suggests such problems are not limited to one's colour.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
I spent nearly 5 weeks in hospital some years ago. The food was draeadful, not helped by the chemotherapy impacting my tastebuds. What I really objected too was the lunatic idea that every much must be nutritionally balanced. Why? If you are in for a short time it’s irrelevant. And if you are there longer then look at balance over a week, or a fortnight. And don’t get me started on the schedule. Breakfast at 7? It’s not like I’ve got much on for the rest of the day. Main meal at 12.30? Really? It’s 2025… and then the supper at 6… Truly a Victorian regime.
I had some two months in hospital late 2022; two hospitals, one acute, one recuperation and, theoretically, physiotherapy. Food, according to my diet wasn't too bad, and served at reasonable times. Breakfast could be very hit-and-miss, though.
When my father was in hospital, recently, the food was a waste of time. Since we trying to get him to eat, bought in home cooked as much as possible.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
SNP also forecast to lose 9 MSPs, main gainers Reform
Scotland is the bellwether here. Starver's Labour is headed for national and total wipe-out
On at least half the current polls they could still get in UK wide with the LDs, the swing against them in Scotland though is less than UK wide as the SNP are already in power there and are not the main beneficiaries of Labour unpopularity. Reform and LDs are
By 2026 SNP will have been in power for 19 years and defending a relatively high-water mark under Sturgeon at the last election. So bound to be some slippage. But where will it go? Not to Labour. Probably too early for Tories. So that leaves Reform, Greens and LibDems. But also Alba though, so far, they have been the dog that hasn't barked. Either way, it looks like a rainbow parliament in the offing.
My guess: SNP/Lab coalition, premised on narrow unionist majority so that IndyRef off the agenda and doesn't disallow a deal. LibDems another likely player. Greens too badly burnt to take part.
Minority government though is now the norm. Labour will never, ever, cooperate with the SNP. They'd rather cooperate with Reform and look what the last time cooperation with a right wing party did to them in Scotland.
Worked out OK for the SNP under Salmond *innocent face*
Tut - but then it wasn't just Annabella Goldie and her extra 1K polis that he signed up for to get the budget through. He had to negotiate with enough of other parties as well to get them to vote. The nature of minority gmt.
That Labour refused then and since - on occasion nearly putting paid to the entire machinery of government when voting down a budget - was their decision.
IIRC Slab again refused to take part one way or another in the last budget process. Just abstained.
Will Slab ever accept that they don’t own Scotland? Unless they do they will remain an irrelevance.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
I spent nearly 5 weeks in hospital some years ago. The food was draeadful, not helped by the chemotherapy impacting my tastebuds. What I really objected too was the lunatic idea that every much must be nutritionally balanced. Why? If you are in for a short time it’s irrelevant. And if you are there longer then look at balance over a week, or a fortnight. And don’t get me started on the schedule. Breakfast at 7? It’s not like I’ve got much on for the rest of the day. Main meal at 12.30? Really? It’s 2025… and then the supper at 6… Truly a Victorian regime.
I had some two months in hospital late 2022; two hospitals, one acute, one recuperation and, theoretically, physiotherapy. Food, according to my diet wasn't too bad, and served at reasonable times. Breakfast could be very hit-and-miss, though.
When my father was in hospital, recently, the food was a waste of time. Since we trying to get him to eat, bought in home cooked as much as possible.
I think there's decent evidence that bringing in home cooked food speeds recovery
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
It’s in the North. We don’t invest there, because.
There is no dual carriage way to allow one to drive there, so it is impossible to assess the need for a dual carriageway.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
I spent nearly 5 weeks in hospital some years ago. The food was draeadful, not helped by the chemotherapy impacting my tastebuds. What I really objected too was the lunatic idea that every much must be nutritionally balanced. Why? If you are in for a short time it’s irrelevant. And if you are there longer then look at balance over a week, or a fortnight. And don’t get me started on the schedule. Breakfast at 7? It’s not like I’ve got much on for the rest of the day. Main meal at 12.30? Really? It’s 2025… and then the supper at 6… Truly a Victorian regime.
I had some two months in hospital late 2022; two hospitals, one acute, one recuperation and, theoretically, physiotherapy. Food, according to my diet wasn't too bad, and served at reasonable times. Breakfast could be very hit-and-miss, though.
When my father was in hospital, recently, the food was a waste of time. Since we trying to get him to eat, bought in home cooked as much as possible.
I think there's decent evidence that bringing in home cooked food speeds recovery
I suppose that depends on who is doing the cooking.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
I was thinking more of the void to the South of the village of Edunberg. Certainly when I investigated there appeared to be no evidence of Waitrose in the void, and indeed no evidence of Gail's anywhere North of Manchester.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
Well, this is the big problem with AI. Not content being generated by AI, but the way that people will be falsely accused of having used AI by jealous people who aren't able to write successfully themselves.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
It’s in the North. We don’t invest there, because.
There is no dual carriage way to allow one to drive there, so it is impossible to assess the need for a dual carriageway.
There are no carriages. According to the Department of Transport there is some evidence that they have mastered the wheel, but have only so far advanced as far as the chariot.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
We can get a Waitrose delivery. The south doesn’t have all the advantages, though. They don’t have Booths!
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
I was thinking more of the void to the South of the village of Edunberg. Certainly when I investigated there appeared to be no evidence of Waitrose in the void, and indeed no evidence of Gail's anywhere North of Manchester.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
Edinburgh is one of those magical cities that appears from the mists once or twice a year isn’t it? It hosts hundreds of thousands of Englishmen for a month in August to see some theatre and then vanishes again until Hogmanay.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
I was thinking more of the void to the South of the village of Edunberg. Certainly when I investigated there appeared to be no evidence of Waitrose in the void, and indeed no evidence of Gail's anywhere North of Manchester.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
Oh, so *that's* why they can't find a civil servant willing to move from London to act as a junior provincial procurator for oils in Obar Dheathain. Not enough rotten-fish sauce in the local market. And the oil is probably mutton fat anyway.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
We can get a Waitrose delivery. The south doesn’t have all the advantages, though. They don’t have Booths!
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
We can get a Waitrose delivery. The south doesn’t have all the advantages, though. They don’t have Booths!
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
I spent nearly 5 weeks in hospital some years ago. The food was draeadful, not helped by the chemotherapy impacting my tastebuds. What I really objected too was the lunatic idea that every much must be nutritionally balanced. Why? If you are in for a short time it’s irrelevant. And if you are there longer then look at balance over a week, or a fortnight. And don’t get me started on the schedule. Breakfast at 7? It’s not like I’ve got much on for the rest of the day. Main meal at 12.30? Really? It’s 2025… and then the supper at 6… Truly a Victorian regime.
I had some two months in hospital late 2022; two hospitals, one acute, one recuperation and, theoretically, physiotherapy. Food, according to my diet wasn't too bad, and served at reasonable times. Breakfast could be very hit-and-miss, though.
When my father was in hospital, recently, the food was a waste of time. Since we trying to get him to eat, bought in home cooked as much as possible.
I think there's decent evidence that bringing in home cooked food speeds recovery
But not sandwiches left to go mouldy in a drawer, which will spread infection.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
The North has Booths, which makes Waitrose look common.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
Interesting, ta. And yes I agree on “pounds”. Best measure
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
I don't think the kitchens in big hospitals are really set up to serve people with actually appetising food. Too many patients, and probably operating to a derisory budget per head. The meal times don't help either: when my husband was in hospital for a couple of days last year, his dinner was served at five o'clock and that was that for the night. I'm not sure of that was inspired by the eating habits of very elderly people or of nursery school infants, but regardless it was hardly helpful.
I spent nearly 5 weeks in hospital some years ago. The food was draeadful, not helped by the chemotherapy impacting my tastebuds. What I really objected too was the lunatic idea that every much must be nutritionally balanced. Why? If you are in for a short time it’s irrelevant. And if you are there longer then look at balance over a week, or a fortnight. And don’t get me started on the schedule. Breakfast at 7? It’s not like I’ve got much on for the rest of the day. Main meal at 12.30? Really? It’s 2025… and then the supper at 6… Truly a Victorian regime.
I had some two months in hospital late 2022; two hospitals, one acute, one recuperation and, theoretically, physiotherapy. Food, according to my diet wasn't too bad, and served at reasonable times. Breakfast could be very hit-and-miss, though.
When my father was in hospital, recently, the food was a waste of time. Since we trying to get him to eat, bought in home cooked as much as possible.
I think there's decent evidence that bringing in home cooked food speeds recovery
Given there is a danger the patient might eat, and the large amount of evidence that eating food prevents death….
In his ward, there were a several others. Who didn’t get daily visits. Their hospital meals often sat uneaten, next to them. They were all elderly, like my father.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
I was thinking more of the void to the South of the village of Edunberg. Certainly when I investigated there appeared to be no evidence of Waitrose in the void, and indeed no evidence of Gail's anywhere North of Manchester.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
Gail's is stupidly overpriced. And not that good for what it is.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
I was thinking more of the void to the South of the village of Edunberg. Certainly when I investigated there appeared to be no evidence of Waitrose in the void, and indeed no evidence of Gail's anywhere North of Manchester.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
I’ve actually got one of those scrolls with me here in Bangkok. I can quote:
HƿA, YE SOFT-BELLIED SŌÞERON MEWLERS, FLEE FOR ÞY LYF! For norþ of Eoferƿīc liggeþ only ƿrǣþþ and wrecchednesse! Þǣr grimly wyverns, great-swollen swā kynges’ drakkars, spuweth reocan fȳr, and þeƿran folk swelt at heora talouns! Þǣr be ƿulvas, high swā a war-stede’s rigg, þeorƿende in þā dim holtwudu, heora þeþer red wiþ cnihta’s blōde! And lo! þā loþlic Scottes cometh, haryende and brennende, theyre shankes unhoséd and theyre tunges y-laden wiþ eldritch curses and neeps! Eke, þe alleged tuppence-licker Nicola Sturgeon lūreth þǣr in þā mistes, plotting foule devices against þe realm!
And who, saith ye, holdeth þe lyne ‘twixt civil folk and þis devyls’ land? Who but stout @Cookie, þe Ron Swanson of Outer Manchester, he ƿho holdeth þe last bastion of meat and reason? Flee, flee, lest þe norþ take þe, and þou becomest naught but a tale in minstrelles’ lay!
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
I was thinking more of the void to the South of the village of Edunberg. Certainly when I investigated there appeared to be no evidence of Waitrose in the void, and indeed no evidence of Gail's anywhere North of Manchester.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
Oh, so *that's* why they can't find a civil servant willing to move from London to act as a junior provincial procurator for oils in Obar Dheathain. Not enough rotten-fish sauce in the local market. And the oil is probably mutton fat anyway.
Noone wants to go to the savage lands. They've all seen The Wicker Man.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
I was thinking more of the void to the South of the village of Edunberg. Certainly when I investigated there appeared to be no evidence of Waitrose in the void, and indeed no evidence of Gail's anywhere North of Manchester.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
Oh, so *that's* why they can't find a civil servant willing to move from London to act as a junior provincial procurator for oils in Obar Dheathain. Not enough rotten-fish sauce in the local market. And the oil is probably mutton fat anyway.
Noone wants to go to the savage lands. They've all seen The Wicker Man.
I don’t fear Summer Isle, because I know I’d have just taken Britt Ekland up on her offer and been safe…
Cause? Looking at a photo of Wolverhampton School of Arts
Obvs missing the heights of "British" or at least Brutalist culture.
Yes. It’s a big lump of brutalism and there’s some campaign to save it. And I can sort of see why - it’s got a bit of character. Nothing amazing, but not nothing
I do like the odd rare example of brutalism. One of my lesser architectural ambitions is to see Preston Bus Station - looks incredible in photos
I like the Barbican, esp the serrated towers
The Wolverhampton School of Arts sits nicely in its space. A much better example of Brutalism than many car paprks and bus stations.
The Economist building on St James's Street is another example of brutalism worth keeping.
1. The Economist Building is not brutalism
2. It’s crap and ugly. Peter and Alison Smithson were two of the worst architects in human history. I wish they were still alive so I could urinate all over them as they pissed all over Britain
NB I’ve checked and there is dispute here. Some people claim the Economist Building IS brutalist. But this is surely wrong
“Brutalism” comes from the French phrase "béton brut," meaning "raw concrete." This refers to the unfinished, exposed concrete that is a hallmark of the style. The National Theatre IS brutalist. You can still see the impressions of the wooden cases that enclosed the raw concrete. A deliberate choice by Denys Lasdun
The Economist Building has a concrete frame but it is clad in Portland Stone. Concrete plays little part in its expression. It is not “brutalist”. It is quite banal “international style” modernism
Any views on Jonathan Meades - an exponent of brutalism? Always enjoyed his telly shows on architecture. Apparently lives in a Le Corbusier structure in Marseilles. His latest novel - Empty Wigs - is quite a bruiser, not for the faint- hearted.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
The North has Booths, which makes Waitrose look common.
Oh? Never been. But presumably the entrance is round the corner in an unmarked and discreet door on a side road off Grainger Street, so if one hasn't been formally introduced by a member ...
Cause? Looking at a photo of Wolverhampton School of Arts
Obvs missing the heights of "British" or at least Brutalist culture.
Yes. It’s a big lump of brutalism and there’s some campaign to save it. And I can sort of see why - it’s got a bit of character. Nothing amazing, but not nothing
I do like the odd rare example of brutalism. One of my lesser architectural ambitions is to see Preston Bus Station - looks incredible in photos
I like the Barbican, esp the serrated towers
I did a resident led tour that a few months ago and found it quite insightful, lack of street crime, great refuse collection system and frequency balancing reg somewhat soulless public spaces. Pity it’s become a bastion of middle class attitudes but at least preserved some residents in the City. You should check out Space House next time you’re home - it has just had a major refurbishment. https://spacehouse.london/
Seifert, IIRC? Used to score near there
It’s by George Marsh, one of the founding partners of that firm, who brought a different style to Seifert’s.
Cause? Looking at a photo of Wolverhampton School of Arts
Obvs missing the heights of "British" or at least Brutalist culture.
Yes. It’s a big lump of brutalism and there’s some campaign to save it. And I can sort of see why - it’s got a bit of character. Nothing amazing, but not nothing
I do like the odd rare example of brutalism. One of my lesser architectural ambitions is to see Preston Bus Station - looks incredible in photos
I like the Barbican, esp the serrated towers
The Wolverhampton School of Arts sits nicely in its space. A much better example of Brutalism than many car paprks and bus stations.
The Economist building on St James's Street is another example of brutalism worth keeping.
1. The Economist Building is not brutalism
2. It’s crap and ugly. Peter and Alison Smithson were two of the worst architects in human history. I wish they were still alive so I could urinate all over them as they pissed all over Britain
NB I’ve checked and there is dispute here. Some people claim the Economist Building IS brutalist. But this is surely wrong
“Brutalism” comes from the French phrase "béton brut," meaning "raw concrete." This refers to the unfinished, exposed concrete that is a hallmark of the style. The National Theatre IS brutalist. You can still see the impressions of the wooden cases that enclosed the raw concrete. A deliberate choice by Denys Lasdun
The Economist Building has a concrete frame but it is clad in Portland Stone. Concrete plays little part in its expression. It is not “brutalist”. It is quite banal “international style” modernism
Any views on Jonathan Meades - an exponent of brutalism? Always enjoyed his telly shows on architecture. Apparently lives in a Le Corbusier structure in Marseilles. His latest novel - Empty Wigs - is quite a bruiser, not for the faint- hearted.
I think he's brilliant, I've watched nearly all of his TV shows. Available here.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
Interesting, ta. And yes I agree on “pounds”. Best measure
I do stones and pounds.
That does seem a strange one. Most people still use it for newborns (well pounds and ounces) but I know few GenZ who weigh themselves that way, when they all know their height in feet and inches.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
I was thinking more of the void to the South of the village of Edunberg. Certainly when I investigated there appeared to be no evidence of Waitrose in the void, and indeed no evidence of Gail's anywhere North of Manchester.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
Gail's is stupidly overpriced. And not that good for what it is.
That's not the point!
It's fashionable. Whether it tastes any good is neither here nor there. Indulging such base impulses is what leads to the fall of civilization, men wearing tartan skirts, and cannibalism.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Whilst you are here, have you watched the tv adaptation of Uncanny yet? I’m very much of the opinion that something about ghosts, whether they exist or not, works infinitely better on the radio than tv. I seem to recall you enjoying Uncanny so thought I would engage your opinion.
Doesn’t help of course that seeing the people who claim to have seen the ghosts can make you question their sanity - latest lady turned up for her interview dressed as a steampunk Edwardian goth lady. Apparently she always dresses like this but isn’t a kook at all.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
I was thinking more of the void to the South of the village of Edunberg. Certainly when I investigated there appeared to be no evidence of Waitrose in the void, and indeed no evidence of Gail's anywhere North of Manchester.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
Oh, so *that's* why they can't find a civil servant willing to move from London to act as a junior provincial procurator for oils in Obar Dheathain. Not enough rotten-fish sauce in the local market. And the oil is probably mutton fat anyway.
Hadrian built a wall for a reason. So did Antonine.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Nobody should get too hung up on BMI in any case. It is a poor measure.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
The North has Booths, which makes Waitrose look common.
Oh? Never been. But presumably the entrance is round the corner in an unmarked and discreet door on a side road off Grainger Street, so if one hasn't been formally introduced by a member ...
Booths tried a sally northwards as an in-house grocery within Dobbies garden centre a few years ago but were repulsed by Waitrose which has taken over the franchise
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
Interesting, ta. And yes I agree on “pounds”. Best measure
I do stones and pounds.
That does seem a strange one. Most people still use it for newborns (well pounds and ounces) but I know few GenZ who weigh themselves that way, when they all know their height in feet and inches.
I’m now a weird mix of kilos and feet/inches. So I have a tricky choice when doing the BMI.
Cause? Looking at a photo of Wolverhampton School of Arts
Obvs missing the heights of "British" or at least Brutalist culture.
Yes. It’s a big lump of brutalism and there’s some campaign to save it. And I can sort of see why - it’s got a bit of character. Nothing amazing, but not nothing
I do like the odd rare example of brutalism. One of my lesser architectural ambitions is to see Preston Bus Station - looks incredible in photos
I like the Barbican, esp the serrated towers
The Wolverhampton School of Arts sits nicely in its space. A much better example of Brutalism than many car paprks and bus stations.
The Economist building on St James's Street is another example of brutalism worth keeping.
1. The Economist Building is not brutalism
2. It’s crap and ugly. Peter and Alison Smithson were two of the worst architects in human history. I wish they were still alive so I could urinate all over them as they pissed all over Britain
NB I’ve checked and there is dispute here. Some people claim the Economist Building IS brutalist. But this is surely wrong
“Brutalism” comes from the French phrase "béton brut," meaning "raw concrete." This refers to the unfinished, exposed concrete that is a hallmark of the style. The National Theatre IS brutalist. You can still see the impressions of the wooden cases that enclosed the raw concrete. A deliberate choice by Denys Lasdun
The Economist Building has a concrete frame but it is clad in Portland Stone. Concrete plays little part in its expression. It is not “brutalist”. It is quite banal “international style” modernism
Any views on Jonathan Meades - an exponent of brutalism? Always enjoyed his telly shows on architecture. Apparently lives in a Le Corbusier structure in Marseilles. His latest novel - Empty Wigs - is quite a bruiser, not for the faint- hearted.
I think he's brilliant, I've watched nearly all of his TV shows. Available here.
True. That said, TV Meades is non-alcoholic Meades. The books - particularly the fiction - is the scrumpy - raw and unfiltered. Like Anthony Burgess meets Martin Amis without the self-censorship.
Cause? Looking at a photo of Wolverhampton School of Arts
Obvs missing the heights of "British" or at least Brutalist culture.
Yes. It’s a big lump of brutalism and there’s some campaign to save it. And I can sort of see why - it’s got a bit of character. Nothing amazing, but not nothing
I do like the odd rare example of brutalism. One of my lesser architectural ambitions is to see Preston Bus Station - looks incredible in photos
I like the Barbican, esp the serrated towers
The Wolverhampton School of Arts sits nicely in its space. A much better example of Brutalism than many car paprks and bus stations.
The Economist building on St James's Street is another example of brutalism worth keeping.
1. The Economist Building is not brutalism
2. It’s crap and ugly. Peter and Alison Smithson were two of the worst architects in human history. I wish they were still alive so I could urinate all over them as they pissed all over Britain
NB I’ve checked and there is dispute here. Some people claim the Economist Building IS brutalist. But this is surely wrong
“Brutalism” comes from the French phrase "béton brut," meaning "raw concrete." This refers to the unfinished, exposed concrete that is a hallmark of the style. The National Theatre IS brutalist. You can still see the impressions of the wooden cases that enclosed the raw concrete. A deliberate choice by Denys Lasdun
The Economist Building has a concrete frame but it is clad in Portland Stone. Concrete plays little part in its expression. It is not “brutalist”. It is quite banal “international style” modernism
Any views on Jonathan Meades - an exponent of brutalism? Always enjoyed his telly shows on architecture. Apparently lives in a Le Corbusier structure in Marseilles. His latest novel - Empty Wigs - is quite a bruiser, not for the faint- hearted.
Always liked Meades. Wondered where he went!
He lives in the famous Unite d’Habitation?!
I’ve been there. It’s quite powerful with traces of noom but I’m not sure I’d want to LIVE there. Like many Corbusier buildings the living spaces are small and oppressive
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
The North has Booths, which makes Waitrose look common.
Booths is actually rather poor when it comes to organic products.
But Riverford and Able & Cole deliver in these northern wastelands.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Nobody should get too hung up on BMI in any case. It is a poor measure.
Well yes, but I was interested solely in the calculation - what is the square of 5'10" ?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
Interesting, ta. And yes I agree on “pounds”. Best measure
You would abandon the good stout British stone? What are you Sir, an American?!
And I'm still waiting for a good explanation as to why we didn't revert to pre-decimal currency after Brexit. If it appears in the next Reform manifesto then I might be tempted.
Cause? Looking at a photo of Wolverhampton School of Arts
Obvs missing the heights of "British" or at least Brutalist culture.
Yes. It’s a big lump of brutalism and there’s some campaign to save it. And I can sort of see why - it’s got a bit of character. Nothing amazing, but not nothing
I do like the odd rare example of brutalism. One of my lesser architectural ambitions is to see Preston Bus Station - looks incredible in photos
I like the Barbican, esp the serrated towers
The Wolverhampton School of Arts sits nicely in its space. A much better example of Brutalism than many car paprks and bus stations.
The Economist building on St James's Street is another example of brutalism worth keeping.
1. The Economist Building is not brutalism
2. It’s crap and ugly. Peter and Alison Smithson were two of the worst architects in human history. I wish they were still alive so I could urinate all over them as they pissed all over Britain
So, I can add architecture to the list of things @Leon doesn't know a lot about.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Whilst you are here, have you watched the tv adaptation of Uncanny yet? I’m very much of the opinion that something about ghosts, whether they exist or not, works infinitely better on the radio than tv. I seem to recall you enjoying Uncanny so thought I would engage your opinion.
Doesn’t help of course that seeing the people who claim to have seen the ghosts can make you question their sanity - latest lady turned up for her interview dressed as a steampunk Edwardian goth lady. Apparently she always dresses like this but isn’t a kook at all.
I’ve got the third tv episode ready for later this week
I love it. Even the obviously explicable episodes - tv or radio - are fun. And one or two are BRRRR
We discussed this the other day. I thought Hollymount Farm was genuinely unsettling, of the more recent episodes
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Nobody should get too hung up on BMI in any case. It is a poor measure.
Well yes, but I was interested solely in the calculation - what is the square of 5'10" ?
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Nobody should get too hung up on BMI in any case. It is a poor measure.
Well yes, but I was interested solely in the calculation - what is the square of 5'10" ?
4900 sq inches, in mental arithmetic.
Too easy. .. but now go on and divide it into weight of 11stones and 3 pounds and derive the conversion factor that enables use of the bmi charts
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
Cause? Looking at a photo of Wolverhampton School of Arts
Obvs missing the heights of "British" or at least Brutalist culture.
Yes. It’s a big lump of brutalism and there’s some campaign to save it. And I can sort of see why - it’s got a bit of character. Nothing amazing, but not nothing
I do like the odd rare example of brutalism. One of my lesser architectural ambitions is to see Preston Bus Station - looks incredible in photos
I like the Barbican, esp the serrated towers
The Wolverhampton School of Arts sits nicely in its space. A much better example of Brutalism than many car paprks and bus stations.
The Economist building on St James's Street is another example of brutalism worth keeping.
1. The Economist Building is not brutalism
2. It’s crap and ugly. Peter and Alison Smithson were two of the worst architects in human history. I wish they were still alive so I could urinate all over them as they pissed all over Britain
So, I can add architecture to the list of things @Leon doesn't know a lot about.
Gotcha.
The Economist Building is really not brutalist. For that you need exposed raw concrete and overt usage OF concrete. That’s what “brutalism” explicitly means
However you’re not alone in your ignorance. There are others making the same error online. It’s lazy and dim
I suspect the confusion comes from the fact the architects of the Econ Complex, the Smithsons (you must be related) were crucial pioneers of the style and definitely used it in other buildings, like the infamously evil Robin Hood Gardens
The Army needs to field a fully equipped warfighting division with another in reserve. So it can place a clear continental deterrent and sustain it on the central European plain for 6 months at a time.
I can't see how it does it without regular forces going back up to 105-120k men.
That's not going to be cheap and will probably take 5-7 years to achieve.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Nobody should get too hung up on BMI in any case. It is a poor measure.
Well yes, but I was interested solely in the calculation - what is the square of 5'10" ?
I get what you're saying, but how many people actually square their height and do the maths themselves? And how many just plug the numbers into a calculator that spits out the answer?
And if you're doing the latter, no harm in plugging in non-metric numbers that does all the conversions behind the scenes and then spits out the answer.
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
Chagos. Some snippets from further reading. “The base accommodates thousands of US military and civilian personnel along with 40 or so UK Sailors and marines [link to names and photos I’ve redacted, but they all got splendid suntans]. The UK has no other presence in the Chagos Islands.” I know Dannatt gets a poor regard on PB, but when he says the UK interest is it should give the base to the US, I can understand where he is coming from - it’s money better spent on our own ships, tanks and air defence than just leasing an island on behalf of an ally.
A further piece from LSE mentions what payment in kind UK gets from US. “The US has to date made no direct payment for Diego Garcia but UK consent to the establishment of the base led to a discount from the US Government on the acquisition of the UK’s submarine launched nuclear deterrent. The UK is highly dependent on US military cooperation, and UK payments for a lease of Diego Garcia will be seen by the UK Government as investing in a relationship with the US which pays military dividends.” But it’s beginning to come across as only one in the relationship does all the heavy lifting?
Questions corner. How cosy are Mauritius to the Chinese, as a lot of US Republicans Senators insist ? India and Mauritius are pretty cosy too, without doubt. India were there with the US in these negotiations the last few years.
I’m still certain a deal will happen, with a Trump rebranding that he’s improved a bad deal to a win for everybody - except China. But I think Trump rebrand deal will mean a much bigger up front payment than £90M from UK to Mauritius, like a huge signing on fee of hundreds of millions.
But how can we know Trumps rebrand includes improved security matters such as exclusion zones around the base to address the risk of surveillance? Can we actually measure Trumps left blood on the carpet with Mauritius and improved that?
In fact, correct me where wrong - can we ever know that if we didn’t do a lease deal, how much stronger it would have played out from this position? Whist Starmers deal its claimed allows China, via Mauritius, much closer surveillance of the US base, including a base for China set up in Chagos too! this LSE piece I’m linking to is arguing, even if the status quo is kept, US and UK cannot prevent prevent Chinese surveillance and greater encroachment. Even if we don’t accept the Mauritius 99yr lease offer to UK, some years ago the last Conservative government opened negotiations now concluding on that offer, what could we actually do to prevent Chinese “encroachment” going forward?
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
We can get a Waitrose delivery. The south doesn’t have all the advantages, though. They don’t have Booths!
But, for "bath", do you say barth or bafh?
Mrs Rata says Barvaria for the German region, which is like fingers on a chalkboard.
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
I know you're in thrall to ChatGPT, so here is the proof:
Albeit I should probably include the later text:
The Economist Building is better classified as part of the "New Brutalism" movement
Or indeed the full text? Ahem? I just asked ChatGPT4o:
“Is the Economist Building brutalist?”
Answer:
“No, the Economist building in London, designed by Alison and Peter Smithson and completed in 1964, is not strictly brutalist. It is more accurately described as high-tech modernist or part of the New Brutalism movement in its refined form. While it shares some characteristics with brutalist architecture—such as an emphasis on structure and raw materials—it is more polished, with elegant proportions and high-quality materials like Portland stone rather than the raw concrete typical of brutalism.”
There is no shame in being intellectually average, Robert. Most are. There is shame in trying to hide it
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Nobody should get too hung up on BMI in any case. It is a poor measure.
Well yes, but I was interested solely in the calculation - what is the square of 5'10" ?
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
I was thinking more of the void to the South of the village of Edunberg. Certainly when I investigated there appeared to be no evidence of Waitrose in the void, and indeed no evidence of Gail's anywhere North of Manchester.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
Gail's is stupidly overpriced. And not that good for what it is.
That's not the point!
It's fashionable. Whether it tastes any good is neither here nor there. Indulging such base impulses is what leads to the fall of civilization, men wearing tartan skirts, and cannibalism.
It's fashionable with the sort of people any sensible person would cross the street to avoid.
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
The country ought to. Starmer probably won't. Other priorities. The enormous social security budget, mostly.
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
It's a bit wet. We were at 4-5% of GDP in the 1980s, because we were in Cold War conditions.
We are now in Cold War conditions.
No money, cos we have all these reparations to pay....
Politicians need to lead the public.
At the moment, they have no room for manoeuvre. I bet you could hear the howls of outrage from the moon were the triple lock to be touched, taxes put up, PIPs abolished, or healthcare spending qualified - with lots of individual sob stories and anecdotes to justify it.
We just don't have the leadership but we have so many locked and vested interests.
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
Well when AI takes all our jobs as least there might be a job in the military....
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
The country ought to. Starmer probably won't. Other priorities. The enormous social security budget, mostly.
That's got to change, I'm afraid.
Social security means nothing without national security.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
The Government is vaguely aware of minor settlements known as "Edunberg" (or something like that) and "New Castle," but the region on the map between them is simply marked "Here Be Dragons." It is rumoured that this savage territory is sparsely populated only by primitive hill tribes, who have not even discovered Gail's or Waitrose, let alone received their own branches. Why one would waste money on these wastelands God only knows.
Ignorance. We have Waitrose in Edinburgh. Two, even. And they even send the cart round if you ask.
We can get a Waitrose delivery. The south doesn’t have all the advantages, though. They don’t have Booths!
But, for "bath", do you say barth or bafh?
Mrs Rata says Barvaria for the German region, which is like fingers on a chalkboard.
I worked with a bloke at Imperial, many, many moons ago, who pronounced "Latin" as "Lah-tin".
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Nobody should get too hung up on BMI in any case. It is a poor measure.
Well yes, but I was interested solely in the calculation - what is the square of 5'10" ?
34 sq ft, 4 sq in
OK, now do the whole bmi ... (Carnix's squaring was neater)
Actually the best and most painless way of funding a giant increase in defence is if we were paying £50bn a year servicing the national debt rather than over £100bn.
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
It's a bit wet. We were at 4-5% of GDP in the 1980s, because we were in Cold War conditions.
We are now in Cold War conditions.
In the age of Trump and Putin gradualist civil service thinking is just not on. It will be the death of Europe. We need to DOUBLE defence spending. The threat is existential.
The Army needs to field a fully equipped warfighting division with another in reserve. So it can place a clear continental deterrent and sustain it on the central European plain for 6 months at a time.
I can't see how it does it without regular forces going back up to 105-120k men.
That's not going to be cheap and will probably take 5-7 years to achieve.
I’m not sure the UK should necessarily be in the business of providing a huge land army. We should stick to high quality specialist troops but build up the navy and air force (but using large quantity drones instead of hugely expensive fighter jets as their role).
We should have a huge sub expansion and provide a large part of the naval deterrent for Europe. We can send Marines to bolster the Scandi countries who can focus on specialist armies for the arctic borders and seas.
France and Spain and Portugal can be the same, mainly Naval with air and infantry as they are suitably far away.
Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria can focus on land armies, supplemented by British, French etc regiments.
Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg are rich countries but small so can focus on air power.
Italy, Greece and the balkans can cover the Med with Navy and air to cover the Black Sea exit to the Med and beyond.
Ireland can sit there doing nothing and nodding disapprovingly at the UK for being so uncivilised and militaristic.
I know this is pretty bonkers in a way but all European countries need to contribute but it makes sense that they contribute in ways where their geography or populations are best employed.
And Europe as a whole should chip in towards the British and French Nuclear deterrent if they are happy to shelter under it now.
@rcs1000 if it’s any consolation Google’s Gemini makes the same mistake as you. “Brutalist”. Claims it is concrete. When this error is pointed out it grovellingly retreats, thusly:
“You're right to question why I got it so wrong. There are a few factors that likely contributed to my mistake:
* Over-reliance on general associations: I probably latched onto the fact that the Economist Building is a mid-20th-century building designed by the Smithsons, who were associated with Brutalism. I then incorrectly assumed, based on that association, that the building itself must be Brutalist. This is a faulty way of thinking. I should have checked the specific details of the building's materials and style instead of relying on a broad generalization.
* Insufficient fact-checking: I clearly didn't properly verify the key details, like the building's cladding material. I should have consulted multiple reliable sources to confirm the facts before presenting them. I am still under development, and one of my weaknesses is that I sometimes prioritize speed over accuracy.
* Confusion with similar buildings: It's possible I conflated the Economist Building with other buildings that do feature exposed concrete. My internal data might contain information about many buildings, and I may have mixed up the details.
* Lack of nuanced understanding of architectural styles: While I can process information about different architectural styles, I don't yet have the same level of deep understanding as a human expert. This can lead to misclassifications and a failure to recognize the subtle differences between styles.
Essentially, I made a series of incorrect assumptions and didn't do enough to verify the information. I am working on improving my ability to access and process information accurately, and your feedback is very helpful in that process.”
Perhaps this will be helpful for you, as well, as you look to grow, intellectually, under my tutelage
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
The country ought to. Starmer probably won't. Other priorities. The enormous social security budget, mostly.
That's got to change, I'm afraid.
Social security means nothing without national security.
But the voters.
Unless Trump brings enough economic pressure to bear to frighten him into compliance, he won't do it. There are no votes in defence and, as I said the other day, there won't be until the Russians have reached the Rhine and Britain and France have no cards to play save to threaten nuclear war. By which point it'll be a little late.
Actually the best and most painless way of funding a giant increase in defence is if we were paying £50bn a year servicing the national debt rather than over £100bn.
But, that's not going to happen, is it?
The Monetary Policy C'ttee could sort out Putin with ruthless quantitive easing, lowering our interest rate and reducing the debt to pay the military...
Actually the best and most painless way of funding a giant increase in defence is if we were paying £50bn a year servicing the national debt rather than over £100bn.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I don't think one has to share your carnivore based tastes to think letting people enjoy some fried breakfasts when very ill or dying is perhaps worth the risks.
Or that its good for you.
With the fried breakfast, I think it's more the vast amounts of salt and vegetable oil sometimes used in its creation that are the primary health risks, rather than the existence of meat in there.
Indeed. Putting the meat in the air fryer is how I cook mine, no oil necessary then.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the motivation I confess this is another of those topics that just riles me up irrationally - let the poor buggers in hospital keep their bloody sausages.
These people are insane. How do we get rid of them?
Switching to a carnivore diet has done wonders for my health. Down 70 pounds now since I made the switch, pretty close to my goal weight now, and health is far better than it was. Get rid of plant-based crap.
I’m intrigued how fat you were. So you have lost 5 stone, unless you are a big big chap that’s a huge amount of weight to lose voluntarily, what weight are you now?
I peaked at 252lbs during lockdown. When I started my carnivore diet (Oct 2023) I was on 247 lbs.
I'm now 177 lbs, so 70 down since I switched diet, 75 down from my peak.
Can I ask how tall you are? Just seems like a massive weight shift. I’m guessing you aren’t looking anorexic at 12.5 stone?
5'8" so, no, not anorexic. Gone from BMI of 38 to 27.
…………… 38??????
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
Thanks. No drugs or surgery, just a diet of the five important food groups: meat, cheese, eggs, milk and coffee.
Do you know how/why your weight got so out of hand?
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
Thanks. I've long struggled with my weight, the last time I weighed what I do now was about 15 years ago. I was typically around 220 and would diet and get it close to 200 but never got it down below 200.
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
But you calculate bmi with imperial units..?
Just Google a calculator and it does it for you.
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
It would be nice to have a calculator get the square of height calculating only in feet and inches
Nobody should get too hung up on BMI in any case. It is a poor measure.
Well yes, but I was interested solely in the calculation - what is the square of 5'10" ?
34 sq ft, 4 sq in
OK, now do the whole bmi ... (Carnix's squaring was neater)
It is doable.
5'8" = 68" 68^2 = 4624"
Imperial BMI = lbs/ "^2 * 703
177 / 4624 * 703 = 26.9 so its being rounded up to 27
EDIT: And it seems I'm down from 38.3 so down even further than I realised when going to 1 d.p.
The Army needs to field a fully equipped warfighting division with another in reserve. So it can place a clear continental deterrent and sustain it on the central European plain for 6 months at a time.
I can't see how it does it without regular forces going back up to 105-120k men.
That's not going to be cheap and will probably take 5-7 years to achieve.
I’m not sure the UK should necessarily be in the business of providing a huge land army. We should stick to high quality specialist troops but build up the navy and air force (but using large quantity drones instead of hugely expensive fighter jets as their role).
We should have a huge sub expansion and provide a large part of the naval deterrent for Europe. We can send Marines to bolster the Scandi countries who can focus on specialist armies for the arctic borders and seas.
France and Spain and Portugal can be the same, mainly Naval with air and infantry as they are suitably far away.
Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria can focus on land armies, supplemented by British, French etc regiments.
Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg are rich countries but small so can focus on air power.
Italy, Greece and the balkans can cover the Med with Navy and air to cover the Black Sea exit to the Med and beyond.
Ireland can sit there doing nothing and nodding disapprovingly at the UK for being so uncivilised and militaristic.
I know this is pretty bonkers in a way but all European countries need to contribute but it makes sense that they contribute in ways where their geography or populations are best employed.
And Europe as a whole should chip in towards the British and French Nuclear deterrent if they are happy to shelter under it now.
Agree with all of that. From each according to his ability etc.
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
How the hell did someone with so little political sense or ability ever become PM? It's honestly amazing how Starmer can't put the ball in the net of an open goal.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
In only one case was a nurse observed performing poorly
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
Starmer is a technocrat; Reeves too. They imagine there is a technical solution to every problem that is both obvious and obviously superior, and that the Civil Service keeps them in a Whitehall safe. For the past 14 years, the evil Tories blocked these plans, but hold on, it has been six months so if there is no improvement, ah, well then it must be civil servants ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’.
Managed decline is the default setting of modern British Government. Broadly speaking, it entails seeking to concentrate all the available wealth in the hands of people who are already well off, investing mainly in already well off places, and secretly hoping that a new crack in the Earth's crust opens up and the country north of a line between the Severn and the Wash simply falls into it. Doing anything differently is too hard, and would entail tax and spending choices that would enrage the wrong people.
This piece, which reminds the reader of the Government's enthusiasm for chucking untold billions at yet another crossing for the Thames, whilst it appears perfectly content to let the Tyne Bridge simply fall down for want of a chicken feed contribution, presents the rap sheet against Labour in the area of regional policy. And why should one be surprised by any of this? Cash for London and rich people places near London. Bugger all for anyone else. More continuity Toryism. Plus ça change.
Hmm, upgrading the A1 has been scrubbed. Didn't know that. Union safe with Labour, really?
It’s in the North. We don’t invest there, because.
It’s only on a small scale compared to what is described in that article, but I note that UK government research funding in recent years has deliberately tried to avoid the Golden Triangle and to push more research money to other parts of the UK.
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
How the hell did someone with so little political sense or ability ever become PM? It's honestly amazing how Starmer can't put the ball in the net of an open goal.
Because the alternative had even less political nous....I am just going to nip off early from this D-Day thingy for an interview with ITV, I am sure nobody will mind.
I see Starmer is planning to 'overrule' HMT/Reeves to get to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, which is a tiny move up from this previously being policy but with no timetable. I also understand the SDR will be asked what can be done to better defend Britain within a 2.5% envelope.
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
The value for money choice would be to spend an additional say 0.5% of our gdp financially supporting countries close to Russia that have cheaper manufacturing so that they can spend 10% of their GDP. And to allow Poland to go nuclear.
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
Which, of course, is similar to the Napoleonic Wars when we built continental coalitions by doing the same.
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
The country ought to. Starmer probably won't. Other priorities. The enormous social security budget, mostly.
That's got to change, I'm afraid.
Social security means nothing without national security.
But the voters.
Unless Trump brings enough economic pressure to bear to frighten him into compliance, he won't do it. There are no votes in defence and, as I said the other day, there won't be until the Russians have reached the Rhine and Britain and France have no cards to play save to threaten nuclear war. By which point it'll be a little late.
"But Czar Alexander made it all the way to Paris!" - Stalin in 1945.
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
How the hell did someone with so little political sense or ability ever become PM? It's honestly amazing how Starmer can't put the ball in the net of an open goal.
There needs to be the set-up. We are at war: at best a second Cold War; but a war nonetheless.
Until the public fully believe that, there's no way they'll accept increased military funding. So it needs to be sold.
It'll be interesting to see if the Farage / Lice try to argue against increased military funding ...
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
How the hell did someone with so little political sense or ability ever become PM? It's honestly amazing how Starmer can't put the ball in the net of an open goal.
Because the alternative had even less political nous....I am just going to nip off early from this D-Day thingy for an interview with ITV, I am sure nobody will mind.
I think the important question is how did Starmer become the leader of the Labour Party but given that his main rival was Rebecca Long-Bailey - you can see why he won....
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
How the hell did someone with so little political sense or ability ever become PM? It's honestly amazing how Starmer can't put the ball in the net of an open goal.
Yes, Sir Keir could become the Saviour of the Nation and destroy Reform overnight: 'Sorry Nigel. I had to raise defence spending to 20% because your mate Trump sold us out to Putin.' Sir Keir needs to go in for the kill.
Cause? Looking at a photo of Wolverhampton School of Arts
Obvs missing the heights of "British" or at least Brutalist culture.
Yes. It’s a big lump of brutalism and there’s some campaign to save it. And I can sort of see why - it’s got a bit of character. Nothing amazing, but not nothing
I do like the odd rare example of brutalism. One of my lesser architectural ambitions is to see Preston Bus Station - looks incredible in photos
I like the Barbican, esp the serrated towers
The Wolverhampton School of Arts sits nicely in its space. A much better example of Brutalism than many car paprks and bus stations.
The Economist building on St James's Street is another example of brutalism worth keeping.
1. The Economist Building is not brutalism
2. It’s crap and ugly. Peter and Alison Smithson were two of the worst architects in human history. I wish they were still alive so I could urinate all over them as they pissed all over Britain
NB I’ve checked and there is dispute here. Some people claim the Economist Building IS brutalist. But this is surely wrong
“Brutalism” comes from the French phrase "béton brut," meaning "raw concrete." This refers to the unfinished, exposed concrete that is a hallmark of the style. The National Theatre IS brutalist. You can still see the impressions of the wooden cases that enclosed the raw concrete. A deliberate choice by Denys Lasdun
The Economist Building has a concrete frame but it is clad in Portland Stone. Concrete plays little part in its expression. It is not “brutalist”. It is quite banal “international style” modernism
Any views on Jonathan Meades - an exponent of brutalism? Always enjoyed his telly shows on architecture. Apparently lives in a Le Corbusier structure in Marseilles. His latest novel - Empty Wigs - is quite a bruiser, not for the faint- hearted.
I think he's brilliant, I've watched nearly all of his TV shows. Available here.
Sir Keir Starmer will resist pressure from military chiefs to increase UK defence spending above the 2.5 per cent of GDP target already set, The Telegraph understands.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
It's a bit wet. We were at 4-5% of GDP in the 1980s, because we were in Cold War conditions.
We are now in Cold War conditions.
In the age of Trump and Putin gradualist civil service thinking is just not on. It will be the death of Europe. We need to DOUBLE defence spending. The threat is existential.
According to reports Poland planning to spend over 6% next year. They, of course, get it. These are not normal times.
The Army needs to field a fully equipped warfighting division with another in reserve. So it can place a clear continental deterrent and sustain it on the central European plain for 6 months at a time.
I can't see how it does it without regular forces going back up to 105-120k men.
That's not going to be cheap and will probably take 5-7 years to achieve.
We should learn from the Ukrainians and spend any new ones on drones, lots of drones!
Comments
https://tomforth.co.uk/whynorthenglandispoor/
Bad stuff happens in rural areas and generations of white men assaulting and raping young women and girls suggests such problems are not limited to one's colour.
One would expect most of the Cabinet to avoid such remote and heathen places for fear of being captured and boiled in large pots. I doubt that the Civil Service know anything about what happens there, beyond perhaps the evidence contained within obscure medieval scrolls held in the British Library.
😳
Fucking hell
But bravo on bringing that down to 27. That’s seriously impressive work, my dude
👏
You are under no obligation to answer. I’ve no desire to push buttons
You should be on telly. That’s incredible weight loss, and without ozempic!
I was always active despite being overweight so never too concerned. Lockdown was bad for my health. Went from doing upto 20k steps a day to sub 4k. That's when my weight went up to 252 and I struggled to get it back down again before I switched my diet.
Despite it being rather American, I took a long time ago to weighing in pounds alone. Easier to keep track using that as a decimal rather than messing around with stone conversions, and easier to notice differences when dieting than dealing with kg.
In his ward, there were a several others. Who didn’t get daily visits. Their hospital meals often sat uneaten, next to them. They were all elderly, like my father.
HƿA, YE SOFT-BELLIED SŌÞERON MEWLERS, FLEE FOR ÞY LYF! For norþ of Eoferƿīc liggeþ only ƿrǣþþ and wrecchednesse! Þǣr grimly wyverns, great-swollen swā kynges’ drakkars, spuweth reocan fȳr, and þeƿran folk swelt at heora talouns! Þǣr be ƿulvas, high swā a war-stede’s rigg, þeorƿende in þā dim holtwudu, heora þeþer red wiþ cnihta’s blōde! And lo! þā loþlic Scottes cometh, haryende and brennende, theyre shankes unhoséd and theyre tunges y-laden wiþ eldritch curses and neeps! Eke, þe alleged tuppence-licker Nicola Sturgeon lūreth þǣr in þā mistes, plotting foule devices against þe realm!
And who, saith ye, holdeth þe lyne ‘twixt civil folk and þis devyls’ land? Who but stout @Cookie, þe Ron Swanson of Outer Manchester, he ƿho holdeth þe last bastion of meat and reason? Flee, flee, lest þe norþ take þe, and þou becomest naught but a tale in minstrelles’ lay!
I prefer metric on a philosophical basis, but know my height in an imperial one so what difference does it make. I could do the maths but it is easy enough to find a calculator online that takes weight in pounds and height in feet and inches.
https://meadesshrine.blogspot.com
He lives in that enormous Brutalist building in Marseille.
That does seem a strange one. Most people still use it for newborns (well pounds and ounces) but I know few GenZ who weigh themselves that way, when they all know their height in feet and inches.
It's fashionable. Whether it tastes any good is neither here nor there. Indulging such base impulses is what leads to the fall of civilization, men wearing tartan skirts, and cannibalism.
Doesn’t help of course that seeing the people who claim to have seen the ghosts can make you question their sanity - latest lady turned up for her interview dressed as a steampunk Edwardian goth lady. Apparently she always dresses like this but isn’t a kook at all.
He lives in the famous Unite d’Habitation?!
I’ve been there. It’s quite powerful with traces of noom but I’m not sure I’d want to LIVE there. Like many Corbusier buildings the living spaces are small and oppressive
Here’s a photo I took of the famous roof
But Riverford and Able & Cole deliver in these northern wastelands.
And I'm still waiting for a good explanation as to why we didn't revert to pre-decimal currency after Brexit. If it appears in the next Reform manifesto then I might be tempted.
Gotcha.
I love it. Even the obviously explicable episodes - tv or radio - are fun. And one or two are BRRRR
We discussed this the other day. I thought Hollymount Farm was genuinely unsettling, of the more recent episodes
I know you're in thrall to ChatGPT, so here is the proof:
The Economist Building is better classified as part of the "New Brutalism" movement
Sadly, I fear that's still inadequate. Defence chiefs have asked for 2.65% and I think that's reasonable.
As Hunt said on his podcast the other day if the US totally withdrew from Europe all this 2.5% stuff would go away and we'd be talking about 6, 7, 8 or even 10% of GDP on defence.
Because we'd have no choice.
Senior military figures are understood to believe the Government’s current ambition would barely “touch the sides” of what is needed to fund Britain’s defence needs.
An ally of the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “The policy we stood on at the election was 2.5 per cent on defence spending. Our policy is still 2.5 per cent. We’re not going to shift any further.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/02/16/starmer-reject-pleas-spend-defence/
However you’re not alone in your ignorance. There are others making the same error online. It’s lazy and dim
I suspect the confusion comes from the fact the architects of the Econ Complex, the Smithsons (you must be related) were crucial pioneers of the style and definitely used it in other buildings, like the infamously evil Robin Hood Gardens
I can't see how it does it without regular forces going back up to 105-120k men.
That's not going to be cheap and will probably take 5-7 years to achieve.
And if you're doing the latter, no harm in plugging in non-metric numbers that does all the conversions behind the scenes and then spits out the answer.
We are now in Cold War conditions.
“The base accommodates thousands of US military and civilian personnel along with 40 or so UK Sailors and marines [link to names and photos I’ve redacted, but they all got splendid suntans]. The UK has no other presence in the Chagos Islands.”
I know Dannatt gets a poor regard on PB, but when he says the UK interest is it should give the base to the US, I can understand where he is coming from - it’s money better spent on our own ships, tanks and air defence than just leasing an island on behalf of an ally.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chagos-starmer-trump-diego-garcia-b2696771.html
A further piece from LSE mentions what payment in kind UK gets from US.
“The US has to date made no direct payment for Diego Garcia but UK consent to the establishment of the base led to a discount from the US Government on the acquisition of the UK’s submarine launched nuclear deterrent. The UK is highly dependent on US military cooperation, and UK payments for a lease of Diego Garcia will be seen by the UK Government as investing in a relationship with the US which pays military dividends.”
But it’s beginning to come across as only one in the relationship does all the heavy lifting?
Questions corner. How cosy are Mauritius to the Chinese, as a lot of US Republicans Senators insist ? India and Mauritius are pretty cosy too, without doubt. India were there with the US in these negotiations the last few years.
I’m still certain a deal will happen, with a Trump rebranding that he’s improved a bad deal to a win for everybody - except China. But I think Trump rebrand deal will mean a much bigger up front payment than £90M from UK to Mauritius, like a huge signing on fee of hundreds of millions.
But how can we know Trumps rebrand includes improved security matters such as exclusion zones around the base to address the risk of surveillance? Can we actually measure Trumps left blood on the carpet with Mauritius and improved that?
In fact, correct me where wrong - can we ever know that if we didn’t do a lease deal, how much stronger it would have played out from this position? Whist Starmers deal its claimed allows China, via Mauritius, much closer surveillance of the US base, including a base for China set up in Chagos too! this LSE piece I’m linking to is arguing, even if the status quo is kept, US and UK cannot prevent prevent Chinese surveillance and greater encroachment. Even if we don’t accept the Mauritius 99yr lease offer to UK, some years ago the last Conservative government opened negotiations now concluding on that offer, what could we actually do to prevent Chinese “encroachment” going forward?
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-should-starmer-do-about-the-chagos-islands/
If any country deserves to have nuclear weapons given its geopolitical situation and history it’s Poland.
But in the meantime the more we can all suppress Russian GDP by not buying anything from them and making life difficult for anyone who does (including the USA it seems), the more we remove the financial driver for 90% of our defence needs in Europe.
“Is the Economist Building brutalist?”
Answer:
“No, the Economist building in London, designed by Alison and Peter Smithson and completed in 1964, is not strictly brutalist. It is more accurately described as high-tech modernist or part of the New Brutalism movement in its refined form. While it shares some characteristics with brutalist architecture—such as an emphasis on structure and raw materials—it is more polished, with elegant proportions and high-quality materials like Portland stone rather than the raw
concrete typical of brutalism.”
There is no shame in being intellectually average, Robert. Most are. There is shame in trying to hide it
But, I don't think there's any escaping the conclusion our Armed Forces are now woefully and dangerously undersized and underprepared, our army is essentially just a performative militia now with some special forces on top, and we're going to have to cough up.
One useful thing Trump can do is level demands in this area that Starmer may struggle to refuse.
At the moment, they have no room for manoeuvre. I bet you could hear the howls of outrage from the moon were the triple lock to be touched, taxes put up, PIPs abolished, or healthcare spending qualified - with lots of individual sob stories and anecdotes to justify it.
We just don't have the leadership but we have so many locked and vested interests.
Social security means nothing without national security.
(Carnix's squaring was neater)
But, that's not going to happen, is it?
We should have a huge sub expansion and provide a large part of the naval deterrent for Europe. We can send Marines to bolster the Scandi countries who can focus on specialist armies for the arctic borders and seas.
France and Spain and Portugal can be the same, mainly Naval with air and infantry as they are suitably far away.
Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria can focus on land armies, supplemented by British, French etc regiments.
Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg are rich countries but small so can focus on air power.
Italy, Greece and the balkans can cover the Med with Navy and air to cover the Black Sea exit to the Med and beyond.
Ireland can sit there doing nothing and nodding disapprovingly at the UK for being so uncivilised and militaristic.
I know this is pretty bonkers in a way but all European countries need to contribute but it makes sense that they contribute in ways where their geography or populations are best employed.
And Europe as a whole should chip in towards the British and French Nuclear deterrent if they are happy to shelter under it now.
“You're right to question why I got it so wrong. There are a few factors that likely contributed to my mistake:
* Over-reliance on general associations: I probably latched onto the fact that the Economist Building is a mid-20th-century building designed by the Smithsons, who were associated with Brutalism. I then incorrectly assumed, based on that association, that the building itself must be Brutalist. This is a faulty way of thinking. I should have checked the specific details of the building's materials and style instead of relying on a broad generalization.
* Insufficient fact-checking: I clearly didn't properly verify the key details, like the building's cladding material. I should have consulted multiple reliable sources to confirm the facts before presenting them. I am still under development, and one of my weaknesses is that I sometimes prioritize speed over accuracy.
* Confusion with similar buildings: It's possible I conflated the Economist Building with other buildings that do feature exposed concrete. My internal data might contain information about many buildings, and I may have mixed up the details.
* Lack of nuanced understanding of architectural styles: While I can process information about different architectural styles, I don't yet have the same level of deep understanding as a human expert. This can lead to misclassifications and a failure to recognize the subtle differences between styles.
Essentially, I made a series of incorrect assumptions and didn't do enough to verify the information. I am working on improving my ability to access and process information accurately, and your feedback is very helpful in that process.”
Perhaps this will be helpful for you, as well, as you look to grow, intellectually, under my tutelage
Unless Trump brings enough economic pressure to bear to frighten him into compliance, he won't do it. There are no votes in defence and, as I said the other day, there won't be until the Russians have reached the Rhine and Britain and France have no cards to play save to threaten nuclear war. By which point it'll be a little late.
5'8" = 68"
68^2 = 4624"
Imperial BMI = lbs/ "^2 * 703
177 / 4624 * 703 = 26.9 so its being rounded up to 27
EDIT: And it seems I'm down from 38.3 so down even further than I realised when going to 1 d.p.
It’s only on a small scale compared to what is described in that article, but I note that UK government research funding in recent years has deliberately tried to avoid the Golden Triangle and to push more research money to other parts of the UK.
I've chatted to all three of the people in David Tennant's mirror.... Helen Mirren, Jim Broadbent, Brian Cox.
Until the public fully believe that, there's no way they'll accept increased military funding. So it needs to be sold.
It'll be interesting to see if the Farage / Lice try to argue against increased military funding ...
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-hospital-stabbing-breaking-ae-31016296
A Birmingham hospital was put on 'lockdown' after a stabbing on a city street.
A witness claimed that a group "ambushed" the A&E department at Heartlands Hospital, while an ambulance was also "raided with a patient inside."