The Nobs of Altrincham all need self-driving Teslas because the installation of a short cycle track and pedestrian crossing means that none of them can find the plonking great parish church any more, so the vicar claims that 40% of them have stopped coming. Perhaps only 60% will tolerate fools gladly.
What's happened is that 1/3 of the parish have a new crossing so it is no longer cut off by a 10k vehicles a day road, and he has a lovely new active travel route so they can all get to his church without a quarter mile diversion to find a crossing across the bloody main road.
God save us from whining (*&^^$&*ers.
(My lovingkindness muscles are under strain, today, after three cars full of police turned up to a minor incident in the local park, whilst other people leave their cars all over the f**cking pavements with ZERO intervention.)
Personally, I find this new pedestrian crossing over the busy Dunham Road very useful on the walk to my regular place of worship (not St Margaret's Church).
On topic, the Conservatives have ratnered their brand: their own supporters don't trust them, and their elected representatives despise them in turn; everyone else who doesn't vote for them hates them.
I'm not sure I see a way out.
Kemi has really improved as this year has gone on - she is now regularly besting Starmer at PMQs. She is punchy and clear in interviews and on social media - such as how she dismantled Lammy yesterday, not a tough gig though admittedly. Her vox pops and soundbites getting onto the news have been so good recently, I can imagine Kemi as a Prime Minister now.
Strangely we agree on this. I have sort of got used to her slow tempo too.
The Tories have not 'Ratnered' their brand recently. Theresa May ratnered the brand when she called them 'the nasty party'. That was a classic Ratner, and almost as damaging as the original in its own way.
She didn't really "Ratner" the brand - Ratner said that their products were crap, while TMay said that some other people called the Conservatives "the nasty party" - not the same thing at all.
Anyway, she first called them that in 2002. After that they went on to lose one general election, win four and lose one.
Compared to disasters like the Truss premiership and the current split on the Right, I don't think it had any effect whatsover.
The effect can be argued, but the method, standing in front of an audience and deliberately shooting your product in the foot, is as exact a parallel as you'll find in politics.
Truss and other issues may have been disastrous or damaging, but they weren't anything to do with Ratner.
What she said was true, and needed saying for the good of the party. The people ratnering the brand are those who supported Johnson and Truss...
I disagree with the basis of your entire point, but taking the basis as read, supporters of Johnson and Truss would have wrecked, damaged or tarnished the brand, but not Ratnered it, as what Gerald Ratner did was very specific. The phrase must mean something or words and language are meaningless.
On topic, the Conservatives have ratnered their brand: their own supporters don't trust them, and their elected representatives despise them in turn; everyone else who doesn't vote for them hates them.
I'm not sure I see a way out.
Kemi has really improved as this year has gone on - she is now regularly besting Starmer at PMQs. She is punchy and clear in interviews and on social media - such as how she dismantled Lammy yesterday, not a tough gig though admittedly. Her vox pops and soundbites getting onto the news have been so good recently, I can imagine Kemi as a Prime Minister now.
Strangely we agree on this. I have sort of got used to her slow tempo too.
The Tories have not 'Ratnered' their brand recently. Theresa May ratnered the brand when she called them 'the nasty party'. That was a classic Ratner, and almost as damaging as the original in its own way.
She didn't really "Ratner" the brand - Ratner said that their products were crap, while TMay said that some other people called the Conservatives "the nasty party" - not the same thing at all.
Anyway, she first called them that in 2002. After that they went on to lose one general election, win four and lose one.
Compared to disasters like the Truss premiership and the current split on the Right, I don't think it had any effect whatsover.
The effect can be argued, but the method, standing in front of an audience and deliberately shooting your product in the foot, is as exact a parallel as you'll find in politics.
Truss and other issues may have been disastrous or damaging, but they weren't anything to do with Ratner.
What she said was true, and needed saying for the good of the party. The people ratnering the brand are those who supported Johnson and Truss...
I disagree with the basis of your entire point, but taking the basis as read, supporters of Johnson and Truss would have wrecked, damaged or tarnished the brand, but not Ratnered it, as what Gerald Ratner did was very specific. The phrase must mean something or words and language are meaningless.
The meaning of words and language change all the time. See “sick”, for example. You can’t gatekeep the English language.
On topic, the Conservatives have ratnered their brand: their own supporters don't trust them, and their elected representatives despise them in turn; everyone else who doesn't vote for them hates them.
I'm not sure I see a way out.
Kemi has really improved as this year has gone on - she is now regularly besting Starmer at PMQs. She is punchy and clear in interviews and on social media - such as how she dismantled Lammy yesterday, not a tough gig though admittedly. Her vox pops and soundbites getting onto the news have been so good recently, I can imagine Kemi as a Prime Minister now.
Strangely we agree on this. I have sort of got used to her slow tempo too.
The Tories have not 'Ratnered' their brand recently. Theresa May ratnered the brand when she called them 'the nasty party'. That was a classic Ratner, and almost as damaging as the original in its own way.
She didn't really "Ratner" the brand - Ratner said that their products were crap, while TMay said that some other people called the Conservatives "the nasty party" - not the same thing at all.
Anyway, she first called them that in 2002. After that they went on to lose one general election, win four and lose one.
Compared to disasters like the Truss premiership and the current split on the Right, I don't think it had any effect whatsover.
The effect can be argued, but the method, standing in front of an audience and deliberately shooting your product in the foot, is as exact a parallel as you'll find in politics.
Truss and other issues may have been disastrous or damaging, but they weren't anything to do with Ratner.
What she said was true, and needed saying for the good of the party. The people ratnering the brand are those who supported Johnson and Truss...
I disagree with the basis of your entire point, but taking the basis as read, supporters of Johnson and Truss would have wrecked, damaged or tarnished the brand, but not Ratnered it, as what Gerald Ratner did was very specific. The phrase must mean something or words and language are meaningless.
If you disagree with the basis of my entire point, then your understanding of the English language must be rather poor. Which, given the various positions you have taken on things like MH17 in the past, is unsurprising.
Just look at what Johnson did when he chucked out a load of more centrist MPs; he told a large part of the party, and its voters, that they were not Tories. I'd say that's a fairly good equivalent to Ratner.
On topic, the Conservatives have ratnered their brand: their own supporters don't trust them, and their elected representatives despise them in turn; everyone else who doesn't vote for them hates them.
I'm not sure I see a way out.
Kemi has really improved as this year has gone on - she is now regularly besting Starmer at PMQs. She is punchy and clear in interviews and on social media - such as how she dismantled Lammy yesterday, not a tough gig though admittedly. Her vox pops and soundbites getting onto the news have been so good recently, I can imagine Kemi as a Prime Minister now.
Strangely we agree on this. I have sort of got used to her slow tempo too.
The Tories have not 'Ratnered' their brand recently. Theresa May ratnered the brand when she called them 'the nasty party'. That was a classic Ratner, and almost as damaging as the original in its own way.
She didn't really "Ratner" the brand - Ratner said that their products were crap, while TMay said that some other people called the Conservatives "the nasty party" - not the same thing at all.
Anyway, she first called them that in 2002. After that they went on to lose one general election, win four and lose one.
Compared to disasters like the Truss premiership and the current split on the Right, I don't think it had any effect whatsover.
The effect can be argued, but the method, standing in front of an audience and deliberately shooting your product in the foot, is as exact a parallel as you'll find in politics.
Truss and other issues may have been disastrous or damaging, but they weren't anything to do with Ratner.
What she said was true, and needed saying for the good of the party. The people ratnering the brand are those who supported Johnson and Truss...
I disagree with the basis of your entire point, but taking the basis as read, supporters of Johnson and Truss would have wrecked, damaged or tarnished the brand, but not Ratnered it, as what Gerald Ratner did was very specific. The phrase must mean something or words and language are meaningless.
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!”
He took his vorpal sword in hand; Long time the manxome foe he sought— So rested he by the Tumtum tree And stood awhile in thought.
On topic, the Conservatives have ratnered their brand: their own supporters don't trust them, and their elected representatives despise them in turn; everyone else who doesn't vote for them hates them.
I'm not sure I see a way out.
Kemi has really improved as this year has gone on - she is now regularly besting Starmer at PMQs. She is punchy and clear in interviews and on social media - such as how she dismantled Lammy yesterday, not a tough gig though admittedly. Her vox pops and soundbites getting onto the news have been so good recently, I can imagine Kemi as a Prime Minister now.
Strangely we agree on this. I have sort of got used to her slow tempo too.
The Tories have not 'Ratnered' their brand recently. Theresa May ratnered the brand when she called them 'the nasty party'. That was a classic Ratner, and almost as damaging as the original in its own way.
She didn't really "Ratner" the brand - Ratner said that their products were crap, while TMay said that some other people called the Conservatives "the nasty party" - not the same thing at all.
Anyway, she first called them that in 2002. After that they went on to lose one general election, win four and lose one.
Compared to disasters like the Truss premiership and the current split on the Right, I don't think it had any effect whatsover.
The effect can be argued, but the method, standing in front of an audience and deliberately shooting your product in the foot, is as exact a parallel as you'll find in politics.
Truss and other issues may have been disastrous or damaging, but they weren't anything to do with Ratner.
What she said was true, and needed saying for the good of the party. The people ratnering the brand are those who supported Johnson and Truss...
I disagree with the basis of your entire point, but taking the basis as read, supporters of Johnson and Truss would have wrecked, damaged or tarnished the brand, but not Ratnered it, as what Gerald Ratner did was very specific. The phrase must mean something or words and language are meaningless.
If you disagree with the basis of my entire point, then your understanding of the English language must be rather poor. Which, given the various positions you have taken on things like MH17 in the past, is unsurprising.
Just look at what Johnson did when he chucked out a load of more centrist MPs; he told a large part of the party, and its voters, that they were not Tories. I'd say that's a fairly good equivalent to Ratner.
Well you'd be wrong. And to add to that, you're now acting like a complete tosspot, as ever.
So Trumps allowed to hammer China but they’re not allowed to respond . If the Chinese don’t back down or some agreement is reached then the markets are going to completely implode .
I never thought I would be on the side of China, but I hope they fuck Trumpistan until the blood runs out of Trump’s arse.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Thank goodness there is one country willing & able to face the bully down. I'm cheering them on (for the time being at least).
China has been on a decades long mission to undermine our economy as well as America's. To do this they have employed every tactic from sharp business practice to outright theft. It is high time they were faced down, and I am glad that someone has come in with the balls to do it.
The UK actually trades very little with China, but as Malmesbury was explaining, our tariff relationship is completely unbalanced due to the Foreign Office's fear of 'upsetting' them. Well, bugger them.
Yes but you wash chicken in the sink
Where would you suggest one should wash it?
Don't wash it - cook it correctly
I like you a lot BigG, but which part of the fact that cooking does absolutely nothing to remove chemical contamination from BPAs in (for example) film packaging do you not understand.
Neither does washing, in all likelihood.
It does a lot more than not washing, as for obvious reasons it will be on the surface.
This is an extract from Wales on line re washing chicken
Why chicken really shouldn’t be washed
Traces of feathers, slime or dirt might have necessitated washing chicken half a century ago. But nowadays, poultry is pre-washed and ready to cook when you buy it.
Still, some people seem to think you should wash your chicken in order to remove the dangerous microorganisms raw meat contains. While it’s true chicken does contain harmful microorganisms, washing prior to cooking doesn’t remove them.
Chicken in particular naturally carries Salmonella and Campylobacter. These can cause very severe illness, with infections causing symptoms such as fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and possibly even septicaemia (blood infection).
Children, elderly people, pregnant women and those with other health conditions or poor immune systems are most at risk of illness from these bacteria. But even in healthy people, Salmonella and Campylobacter infections can lead to hospitalisations and death.
Washing chicken prior to cooking does not eliminate all the germs within a chicken. At most, it may only remove the bacteria on the surface. But this practice actually makes the overall infection risk from raw chicken significantly worse, as it may potentially cause the pathogens washed off the chicken skin to spread throughout your kitchen.
When you put raw chicken under the tap, the bacteria on the skin move into the water stream. This will then be splashed into your sink – and potentially your surrounding counters, cupboards and dish rack. This water spray can travel up to 80cm – the length of the average adult arm. This makes cross-contamination pretty likely, especially if these water droplets have landed elsewhere in your kitchen. It may even contaminate other uncooked foods you later place in the same sink.
Even if you rinse the sink with water after washing the chicken, this may not be sufficient to remove all the pathogenic bacteria that have become attached.
It’s also worth noting that soaking poultry in a brine of water and vinegar or citrus juice does not make it more hygienic. Research has shown that Salmonella weren’t killed following soaking chicken in vinegar or citrus juice for more than five minutes. Other research shows that Campylobacter numbers may be reduced following a marinade in vinegar or lemon juice, but it takes 24 hours of soaking.
I do parboil whole chicken for about 5 minutes before roasting. It removes an unpleasant scum. It also helps cook the bird more evenly as both the outside and the inside of the carcass are warmed before putting in the oven.
Good idea to be fair
Seems like a bit of a faff tbh. I've never noticed any 'scum' with my roast chicken.
You roast it in the bag for an hour then 20-30mins outside the bag. It was excellent, tender and flavoursome. No question of spreading any contamination pre-cooking with that one.
And at £4.95 for the standard brined chicken or £9.95 for the "No. 1" free-range version, it's great value. We had roast chicken for the two of us, a cold chicken sandwich each today, enough meat in the freezer for a biryani for two, plus a litre of chicken stock from the bones.
And no chlorine wash or growth hormones.
You presumably haven't seen the scum because you have never boiled it out. The faff is the effort of boiling a pan of water, sticking a chicken in the water and taking it out again. Probably about 20 seconds of your time. For that you get a slightly better tasting roast bird and save maybe 10 minutes cooking time.
Fair enough. I winder what the 'scum' actually is? We do get a scum from simmering the carcass for stock which we always do after a roast bird - so much better than stock cube stock. We skim the scum off and freeze the stock for whenever we need it.
Anyway, I think we'll stick to the Waitrose brined chickens for the foreseeable, as this one was so good.
This is a complete guess, so don't accuse me of kooky theories, but maybe it's dead pathogens and parasites and things. I have heard about skimming and how its better to take off the foam and get rid. Never investigated it though.
An AI answer:
"The "scum" that forms on top of boiling chicken broth is primarily coagulated proteins (like albumin) and fat that rise to the surface and clump together, often appearing as a foamy or bubbly layer. "
Maybe I will go back to being a vegetarian again.
Check out the scum you get from boiling brown rice!
Don't you wash your rice??
We certainly do. Makes no difference. Ask your Mum ;-)
On topic, the Conservatives have ratnered their brand: their own supporters don't trust them, and their elected representatives despise them in turn; everyone else who doesn't vote for them hates them.
I'm not sure I see a way out.
Kemi has really improved as this year has gone on - she is now regularly besting Starmer at PMQs. She is punchy and clear in interviews and on social media - such as how she dismantled Lammy yesterday, not a tough gig though admittedly. Her vox pops and soundbites getting onto the news have been so good recently, I can imagine Kemi as a Prime Minister now.
Strangely we agree on this. I have sort of got used to her slow tempo too.
The Tories have not 'Ratnered' their brand recently. Theresa May ratnered the brand when she called them 'the nasty party'. That was a classic Ratner, and almost as damaging as the original in its own way.
She didn't really "Ratner" the brand - Ratner said that their products were crap, while TMay said that some other people called the Conservatives "the nasty party" - not the same thing at all.
Anyway, she first called them that in 2002. After that they went on to lose one general election, win four and lose one.
Compared to disasters like the Truss premiership and the current split on the Right, I don't think it had any effect whatsover.
The effect can be argued, but the method, standing in front of an audience and deliberately shooting your product in the foot, is as exact a parallel as you'll find in politics.
Truss and other issues may have been disastrous or damaging, but they weren't anything to do with Ratner.
What she said was true, and needed saying for the good of the party. The people ratnering the brand are those who supported Johnson and Truss...
I disagree with the basis of your entire point, but taking the basis as read, supporters of Johnson and Truss would have wrecked, damaged or tarnished the brand, but not Ratnered it, as what Gerald Ratner did was very specific. The phrase must mean something or words and language are meaningless.
The meaning of words and language change all the time. See “sick”, for example. You can’t gatekeep the English language.
The use of Ratner is designed to indicate awareness of a well-known marketing story, but its use to describe every single incidence of an action that might harm a brand or anything else, indicates you're not aware of that story at all. That's silly, and if I want to point it out, I will.
On topic, the Conservatives have ratnered their brand: their own supporters don't trust them, and their elected representatives despise them in turn; everyone else who doesn't vote for them hates them.
I'm not sure I see a way out.
Kemi has really improved as this year has gone on - she is now regularly besting Starmer at PMQs. She is punchy and clear in interviews and on social media - such as how she dismantled Lammy yesterday, not a tough gig though admittedly. Her vox pops and soundbites getting onto the news have been so good recently, I can imagine Kemi as a Prime Minister now.
Strangely we agree on this. I have sort of got used to her slow tempo too.
The Tories have not 'Ratnered' their brand recently. Theresa May ratnered the brand when she called them 'the nasty party'. That was a classic Ratner, and almost as damaging as the original in its own way.
She didn't really "Ratner" the brand - Ratner said that their products were crap, while TMay said that some other people called the Conservatives "the nasty party" - not the same thing at all.
Anyway, she first called them that in 2002. After that they went on to lose one general election, win four and lose one.
Compared to disasters like the Truss premiership and the current split on the Right, I don't think it had any effect whatsover.
The effect can be argued, but the method, standing in front of an audience and deliberately shooting your product in the foot, is as exact a parallel as you'll find in politics.
Truss and other issues may have been disastrous or damaging, but they weren't anything to do with Ratner.
What she said was true, and needed saying for the good of the party. The people ratnering the brand are those who supported Johnson and Truss...
I disagree with the basis of your entire point, but taking the basis as read, supporters of Johnson and Truss would have wrecked, damaged or tarnished the brand, but not Ratnered it, as what Gerald Ratner did was very specific. The phrase must mean something or words and language are meaningless.
If you disagree with the basis of my entire point, then your understanding of the English language must be rather poor. Which, given the various positions you have taken on things like MH17 in the past, is unsurprising.
Just look at what Johnson did when he chucked out a load of more centrist MPs; he told a large part of the party, and its voters, that they were not Tories. I'd say that's a fairly good equivalent to Ratner.
Well you'd be wrong. And to add to that, you're now acting like a complete tosspot, as ever.
I don't think I am wrong - telling a large part of the party - and the voters - that they are unwelcome was not enhancing the brand, was it?
F1: it's here, the review of the most exciting race ever held! Forget Canada 2011, I speak, of course, of Japan in 2025 (also, a preview of Bahrain, which might actually be good):
This follows Trump's demand slump on the back of his tariff recession fears. India and China aren't going to need Moscow's discounted oil deals - they can get it on the open market without risk of attendant sanctions.
Oh, and the rate of inflation in Russia is up to an official 10.1% in February, whilst production rose by just 0.1%. Stagflation writ large.
On topic, the Conservatives have ratnered their brand: their own supporters don't trust them, and their elected representatives despise them in turn; everyone else who doesn't vote for them hates them.
I'm not sure I see a way out.
Kemi has really improved as this year has gone on - she is now regularly besting Starmer at PMQs. She is punchy and clear in interviews and on social media - such as how she dismantled Lammy yesterday, not a tough gig though admittedly. Her vox pops and soundbites getting onto the news have been so good recently, I can imagine Kemi as a Prime Minister now.
Strangely we agree on this. I have sort of got used to her slow tempo too.
The Tories have not 'Ratnered' their brand recently. Theresa May ratnered the brand when she called them 'the nasty party'. That was a classic Ratner, and almost as damaging as the original in its own way.
She didn't really "Ratner" the brand - Ratner said that their products were crap, while TMay said that some other people called the Conservatives "the nasty party" - not the same thing at all.
Anyway, she first called them that in 2002. After that they went on to lose one general election, win four and lose one.
Compared to disasters like the Truss premiership and the current split on the Right, I don't think it had any effect whatsover.
The effect can be argued, but the method, standing in front of an audience and deliberately shooting your product in the foot, is as exact a parallel as you'll find in politics.
Truss and other issues may have been disastrous or damaging, but they weren't anything to do with Ratner.
What she said was true, and needed saying for the good of the party. The people ratnering the brand are those who supported Johnson and Truss...
I disagree with the basis of your entire point, but taking the basis as read, supporters of Johnson and Truss would have wrecked, damaged or tarnished the brand, but not Ratnered it, as what Gerald Ratner did was very specific. The phrase must mean something or words and language are meaningless.
The meaning of words and language change all the time. See “sick”, for example. You can’t gatekeep the English language.
The use of Ratner is designed to indicate awareness of a well-known marketing story, but its use to describe every single incidence of an action that might harm a brand or anything else, indicates you're not aware of that story at all. That's silly, and if I want to point it out, I will.
IMV you are trying to define 'Ratnering' so narrowly it could rarely, if ever, be used. So, a question: can you name another occasion someone has Ratnered a brand, in your view?
The Nobs of Altrincham all need self-driving Teslas because the installation of a short cycle track and pedestrian crossing means that none of them can find the plonking great parish church any more, so the vicar claims that 40% of them have stopped coming. Perhaps only 60% will tolerate fools gladly.
What's happened is that 1/3 of the parish have a new crossing so it is no longer cut off by a 10k vehicles a day road, and he has a lovely new active travel route so they can all get to his church without a quarter mile diversion to find a crossing across the bloody main road.
God save us from whining (*&^^$&*ers.
(My lovingkindness muscles are under strain, today, after three cars full of police turned up to a minor incident in the local park, whilst other people leave their cars all over the f**cking pavements with ZERO intervention.)
Personally, I find this new pedestrian crossing over the busy Dunham Road very useful on the walk to my regular place of worship (not St Margaret's Church).
Thanks for the reply. I had a serious dig into this when the story was first out last year, and the non-attendance was being blamed on cycle lane before it was actually built.
The previous Vicar there was a character - a biker with a Harley that he used for charity fundraising.
What they actually have (in Church of England terms) is a superb new mission / engagement opportunity - 1/3 of their parish area is the other side of the main road and has been cut off since the (estd) 1960s. And they now have a significant route in the new active travel network going past their door and people waiting outside for a minute to cross the road on the pedestrian crossing, and they are now the focus where people will come to cross.
It's crying out for a carefully designed wayside pulpit and noticeboard, and some cycle and mobility aid parking at the church. Plus it's an ideal place for inclusive cycling trials, since they have a sealed path and car park.
All the infra and organisations exist in Manchester, including grants for their cycle / mobility aid parking.
Comments
I love XKCD.
Just look at what Johnson did when he chucked out a load of more centrist MPs; he told a large part of the party, and its voters, that they were not Tories. I'd say that's a fairly good equivalent to Ratner.
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.
And as for Truss.... enough said.
Is there any reason to forsee a real recovery?
Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-2025-japanese-gp-review-and-bahrain-gp-preview/
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f1-2025-japanese-gp-review-and-bahrain-gp-preview/id1786574257?i=1000702649287
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0uPJ5ejTQNpzA1ONAtbIoP
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/5bf0f8d4-7d90-4cad-b265-fc30b3f68e83/undercutters---f1-podcast-f1-2025-japanese-gp-review-and-bahrain-gp-preview
Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/04/f1-2025-japanese-gp-review-and-bahrain.html
NEW THREAD
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Saudi-Arabia-Slashes-Oil-Prices-Ahead-of-Output-Boost.html
This follows Trump's demand slump on the back of his tariff recession fears. India and China aren't going to need Moscow's discounted oil deals - they can get it on the open market without risk of attendant sanctions.
Oh, and the rate of inflation in Russia is up to an official 10.1% in February, whilst production rose by just 0.1%. Stagflation writ large.
The previous Vicar there was a character - a biker with a Harley that he used for charity fundraising.
What they actually have (in Church of England terms) is a superb new mission / engagement opportunity - 1/3 of their parish area is the other side of the main road and has been cut off since the (estd) 1960s. And they now have a significant route in the new active travel network going past their door and people waiting outside for a minute to cross the road on the pedestrian crossing, and they are now the focus where people will come to cross.
It's crying out for a carefully designed wayside pulpit and noticeboard, and some cycle and mobility aid parking at the church. Plus it's an ideal place for inclusive cycling trials, since they have a sealed path and car park.
All the infra and organisations exist in Manchester, including grants for their cycle / mobility aid parking.
But ... no.
That's why I'm a little cross about it.