One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
This would be a step backwards for Warwickshire. For the past two years we've combined all recyclables - paper, card, bottles, plastic, film - in a single bin. The system seems to work perfectly well.
I agree! What a waste of everyone's time this would be.
I expect there will be some private operators who offer 'just one bin for everything' and make a fortune. I'd sign up just to avoid the nanny statism of policies like this.
Bet the lanyard wearing classes will love it tho. More petty rulemaking is right up their strasser...
From your bookselling correspondent: David Walliams is, shall we say, 'well known' in the publishing and bookselling industry. If anything goes to court, there'll be some interesting discovery.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
This would be a step backwards for Warwickshire. For the past two years we've combined all recyclables - paper, card, bottles, plastic, film - in a single bin. The system seems to work perfectly well.
What a waste of everyone's time.
I expect there will be some private operators who offer 'just one bin for everything' and make a fortune. I'd sign up just to avoid the nanny statism of policies like this.
As ever, discussions of recycling on PB seem to miss the fact that there aren't any old holes in the ground left. They're worth so much that any surviving ones are either kept for other reasons or dug out de novo as much for the hole as for the rock, gravel, etc. *Anything* to reduce the amount of landfill is desperately needed.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
From your bookselling correspondent: David Walliams is, shall we say, 'well known' in the publishing and bookselling industry. If anything goes to court, there'll be some interesting discovery.
Yes. There was (Wiki) a previous case where derogatory comments were leaked wrt Britain's Got Talent. In that case a settlement was reached.
Harper-Collins need to have their ducks in a row in contractual and evidence terms.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
All very true. Though the Scots already had their local government *completely* reorganised by the Tories, twice, first in completely uniform two-tier mode (the islands councils apart, understandably), and then single tier mode, in ways which would have seen riots and the burning down of Downing Street [edit] if done in England. what did happen in England was bad enough vide the pink-coated hordes from Rutland, Cleveland, [edit] the posh folk of BANES, etc. Holyrood hasn't reorganised that except perhaps for some minor changes.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Don't the LDs support a Federal UK?
I don't know, but if they do they probably believe in breaking England up into penny packets.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Don't the LDs support a Federal UK?
I'm sur Mr Trump supports a Federal UK. We get to be State 52.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Don't the LDs support a Federal UK?
Yep, though they were happy enough to support a devolved UK (not the same thing). Still, JohnLilburne's point comparing England to, say, South Georgia or the Chagos Islands is a genuinely interesting one worthy of further thought (I am not being sarcastic).
From your bookselling correspondent: David Walliams is, shall we say, 'well known' in the publishing and bookselling industry. If anything goes to court, there'll be some interesting discovery.
Yes, I have some cousins in the business. I think it would be foolish of Walliams to contest this.
There’s been quite the ramp-up in Ukranian strikes on strategic assets in the last few days.
Nice to see the Ukranians responding to Mr Putin's plea for respect.
It might have more affect if they disabled civilian airliners. That would impact the Russian population because sanctions would drastically limit their repairability. Only a handful of generals know or care how many warplanes Russia has.
I've been wondering for months why that does not happen, since it's an obvious dual use technology, and the number of civil airlines in Russia is somewhere in the mid-hundreds.
Major drone offensives against a few Western Russian airports could have quite the effect. Recovery would take a decade, and it is one that becomes impossible after a cease-fire.
Attacking civilian airliners would almost certainly kill civilians.
They aren't arsed about killing civilians who work in oil refineries.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Most people do not live in different places. MPs do though.
And if everything is dumped in the same recycling bin, the recycling plants can easily sort it out at their end. Simple and standard.
From your bookselling correspondent: David Walliams is, shall we say, 'well known' in the publishing and bookselling industry. If anything goes to court, there'll be some interesting discovery.
Is he in the Russell Brand league? I've avoided reading any details about it.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Don't the LDs support a Federal UK?
Yep, though they were happy enough to support a devolved UK (not the same thing). Still, JohnLilburne's point comparing England to, say, South Georgia or the Chagos Islands is a genuinely interesting one worthy of further thought (I am not being sarcastic).
I'm wondering if selling England to Mauritius would be good or not. I suppose we wouldn't get the weather.
(We have copies. There are worse things than dreadful childrens' books.)
A completely unconnected story about another author: once we had Jilly Cooper - sadly now gone - at our bookshop for an event. At no point during her visit did we consider which of our booksellers could be safely left alone in a room with Jilly, nor did we suggest female staff didn't wear skirts, nor did we plan the author seating so that there was a safety gap between author and bookbuyers to prevent groping of the latter by the former. Ms Cooper was lovely.
There’s been quite the ramp-up in Ukranian strikes on strategic assets in the last few days.
Nice to see the Ukranians responding to Mr Putin's plea for respect.
It might have more affect if they disabled civilian airliners. That would impact the Russian population because sanctions would drastically limit their repairability. Only a handful of generals know or care how many warplanes Russia has.
I've been wondering for months why that does not happen, since it's an obvious dual use technology, and the number of civil airlines in Russia is somewhere in the mid-hundreds.
Major drone offensives against a few Western Russian airports could have quite the effect. Recovery would take a decade, and it is one that becomes impossible after a cease-fire.
Attacking civilian airliners would almost certainly kill civilians.
They aren't arsed about killing civilians who work in oil refineries.
There’s been quite the ramp-up in Ukranian strikes on strategic assets in the last few days.
Nice to see the Ukranians responding to Mr Putin's plea for respect.
It might have more affect if they disabled civilian airliners. That would impact the Russian population because sanctions would drastically limit their repairability. Only a handful of generals know or care how many warplanes Russia has.
I've been wondering for months why that does not happen, since it's an obvious dual use technology, and the number of civil airlines in Russia is somewhere in the mid-hundreds.
Major drone offensives against a few Western Russian airports could have quite the effect. Recovery would take a decade, and it is one that becomes impossible after a cease-fire.
Attacking civilian airliners would almost certainly kill civilians.
They aren't arsed about killing civilians who work in oil refineries.
Those civilians have made their choice.
Where do you draw the line?
The line is drawn with military targets, which oil refineries are. If you choose to work at a military target, you accept the risk of death or injury.
There’s been quite the ramp-up in Ukranian strikes on strategic assets in the last few days.
Nice to see the Ukranians responding to Mr Putin's plea for respect.
It might have more affect if they disabled civilian airliners. That would impact the Russian population because sanctions would drastically limit their repairability. Only a handful of generals know or care how many warplanes Russia has.
I've been wondering for months why that does not happen, since it's an obvious dual use technology, and the number of civil airlines in Russia is somewhere in the mid-hundreds.
Major drone offensives against a few Western Russian airports could have quite the effect. Recovery would take a decade, and it is one that becomes impossible after a cease-fire.
Attacking civilian airliners would almost certainly kill civilians.
They aren't arsed about killing civilians who work in oil refineries.
Those civilians have made their choice.
Where do you draw the line?
I think if you have been invaded by a genocidal neighbour that is murdering, raping and torturing your fellow citizens, you get to be a bit casual about where you draw the line.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Don't the LDs support a Federal UK?
I'm sur Mr Trump supports a Federal UK. We get to be State 52.
David Walliams is widely known as a creepy, sick fuck. Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
Old comics writing books, and often children's books, seems quite a recent fad. Do they really write them or is there a whole army of ghost writers in play?
David Walliams is widely known as a creepy, sick fuck. Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
Old comics writing books, and often children's books, seems quite a recent fad. Do they really write them or is there a whole army of ghost writers in play?
David Walliams is widely known as a creepy, sick fuck. Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
Old comics writing books, and often children's books, seems quite a recent fad. Do they really write them or is there a whole army of ghost writers in play?
Nothing new there, they used to have Rent-a-ghosts back in the seventies.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
How 🇷🇺Putin and 🇸🇦MBS got Witkoff to take the lead in 🇺🇸American diplomacy on Russia and Ukraine, and how Kellogg was pushed aside after turning down Russia’s pre-inauguration entreaty relayed via Tucker Carlson. https://x.com/yarotrof/status/2002299059990642777
David Walliams is widely known as a creepy, sick fuck. Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
Old comics writing books, and often children's books, seems quite a recent fad. Do they really write them or is there a whole army of ghost writers in play?
David Walliams is widely known as a creepy, sick fuck. Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
Old comics writing books, and often children's books, seems quite a recent fad. Do they really write them or is there a whole army of ghost writers in play?
Nothing new there, they used to have Rent-a-ghosts back in the seventies.
I feel it must be better now as when someone writes most of a book with a bigger name now they usually at least get their name included, eg Wilbur Smith or James Patterson.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
My first car was a Mini and my father-in-law worried where I’d put the starting handle. Given that the Mini engine was transverse it would have inserted through one of the front wheels!
David Walliams is widely known as a creepy, sick fuck. Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
Old comics writing books, and often children's books, seems quite a recent fad. Do they really write them or is there a whole army of ghost writers in play?
I feel like they probably do - a good childrens book will be hard to write, but a mediocre one is probably easier to attempt for a new author.
An author ive read quite a bit lately, JD Kirk, used to write children's books but has now transitioned to the apparently more lucrative field of violent scottish noir crime thrillers.
Walliam’s books aren’t bad because they are badly written per se.
Just that, like all of Walliam’s comedy work, they have a mean-spirited “punching down” tone.
Compare with Dahl who is of course horribly rude about his characters but always viewed through the eyes of the innocent (Charlie, Matilda, Danny etc) - following in the footsteps of Dickens. Mrs Trunchbull is a grotesque because she wields abominable, sadistic power over Matilda.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
This would be a step backwards for Warwickshire. For the past two years we've combined all recyclables - paper, card, bottles, plastic, film - in a single bin. The system seems to work perfectly well.
That’s the best way to do it. One bin for rubbish and one for mixed recyclables.
Those wanting to give out eight bins aren’t interested in maximising recycling, they’re interested in maximising purchases of bins and income from fines.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
My first car was a Mini and my father-in-law worried where I’d put the starting handle. Given that the Mini engine was transverse it would have inserted through one of the front wheels!
There were third party starting handle kits for the Mini. You just had to whip off the driver's side front wheel to use it. RAF Minis/Minivans sometimes had them because they were often left undriven for more than 20 minutes and the state-of-the-art British motor industry electrics meant the battery would be flat.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
I remember my older brother in the 60s having a car with yellow rods which stuck out when he turned.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
I remember my older brother in the 60s having a car with yellow rods which stuck out when he turned.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Don't the LDs support a Federal UK?
I don't know, but if they do they probably believe in breaking England up into penny packets.
I can't speak for the party but this ex-LD is of the view more authority should sit at elected council level - the unitaries should have much more authority and responsibility (some power should be devolved to parishes too) leaving Westminster more of a genuine UK parliament considering UK-wide matters only.
I'm not interested in regional Parliaments or Assemblies though collaborative working across regions involving several councils already exists.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
I remember my older brother in the 60s having a car with yellow rods which stuck out when he turned.
Trafficators, weren't they called? One of those words like 'motorist' that has the air of the backless glove of a certain era.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
My first car was a Mini and my father-in-law worried where I’d put the starting handle. Given that the Mini engine was transverse it would have inserted through one of the front wheels!
There were third party starting handle kits for the Mini. You just had to whip off the driver's side front wheel to use it. RAF Minis/Minivans sometimes had them because they were often left undriven for more than 20 minutes and the state-of-the-art British motor industry electrics meant the battery would be flat.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
I remember my older brother in the 60s having a car with yellow rods which stuck out when he turned.
He also told me about double declutching...
I had to think about the 'yellow rods' comment, then it clicked. Didn't have them, but they were common. Morris Minors I recall.
Re double declutching I do that now even though I have never owned a car without synchromesh and learnt it much later in driving. It is a sensible thing to do prior to overtaking, changing down prior to a bend or having to change down going up a hill.
My dad's "official" vehicle when he was at the High Commission in Nigeria was a LandRover 90 and that came with a starting handle in the late 80s. It also came new from the factory with a broken engine mount which meant it vibrated so much the valve springs couldn't close causing flames to come out of the carb and set fire to the air filter. I stole some rebar off a construction site near our compound and welded up new solid mounts. #britishisbest
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
My first car was a Mini and my father-in-law worried where I’d put the starting handle. Given that the Mini engine was transverse it would have inserted through one of the front wheels!
As soon as you said Mini I thought 'tricky'. Mine was an Austin A40.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
Good question, but I am surprised I survived the 60s. I used to play in derelict houses, building sites and bomb sites.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
Good question, but I am surprised I survived the 60s. I used to play in derelict houses, building sites and bomb sites.
We did that in the 90s. Minus the bomb sites, obviously.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
My first car was a Mini and my father-in-law worried where I’d put the starting handle. Given that the Mini engine was transverse it would have inserted through one of the front wheels!
As soon as you said Mini I thought 'tricky'. Mine was an Austin A40.
The only trouble I ever had was when I was trying to change a wheel and the (very flimsy) Jack slipped. Luckily I could hold the car up for long enough for my wife to push the new wheel into place.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
Good question, but I am surprised I survived the 60s. I used to play in derelict houses, building sites and bomb sites.
Friend of mine used to do that; died of asbestosis as a result.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Don't the LDs support a Federal UK?
I don't know, but if they do they probably believe in breaking England up into penny packets.
I can't speak for the party but this ex-LD is of the view more authority should sit at elected council level - the unitaries should have much more authority and responsibility (some power should be devolved to parishes too) leaving Westminster more of a genuine UK parliament considering UK-wide matters only.
I'm not interested in regional Parliaments or Assemblies though collaborative working across regions involving several councils already exists.
Will never happen. Whitehall hates dealing with councils, its one reason the mayoral model is being pushed.
All parties talk up empowering local communities, but tend to go vague when it's time to try it.
Though since councils are mostly social care organisations with a few bits attached, theres little they can do now.
The nativity is the first public sorting most children experience, and it’s definitely sorting rather than sortition.
Some parts have lines, others don’t. The narrator, Joseph, the innkeeper, the wise men and the angel Gabriel have meaningful lines.
There are no female parts with dialogue. As I discovered when our daughter was given the seemingly plum role of Mary only to discover it’s a completely silent part. You just sit there looking demure. Hence the most articulate young girl tends to get the narrator part, and/or they treat the Angels as ladies.
Those vote shares are pretty close to what you’d expect with current class and educational differences in party support, but there’s something else going on too. Look at the Lib Dems: Joseph the top performer, but narrator way down. I would hazard a guess that says something why some people become Lib Dems. We are Josephs, rather than narrators.
I'm not familiar with recent primary school nativities, but how do you have one with a silent Mary - that sounds very untraditional.
If Mary is silent, that is an editorial choice.
What do Roman Catholic Nativities do (with their habit of emphasising the place of Mary)?
(If it were up to me I would include the Annunciation as perhaps the first scene.)
For the conception scene at the very least, you need some dialogue. And, of course, the bit where Mary is at the doctor's office.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
Good question, but I am surprised I survived the 60s. I used to play in derelict houses, building sites and bomb sites.
Friend of mine used to do that; died of asbestosis as a result.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Don't the LDs support a Federal UK?
I'm sur Mr Trump supports a Federal UK. We get to be State 52.
New Trumpland it is.
We do of course have Trumpington in Cambridgeshire and Trumps Green in Surrey.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
I remember my older brother in the 60s having a car with yellow rods which stuck out when he turned.
Trafficators, weren't they called? One of those words like 'motorist' that has the air of the backless glove of a certain era.
That's very British.
You are supposed to stick them out BEFORE you turn so everybody has a f*****g clue where you are going.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Don't the LDs support a Federal UK?
I'm sur Mr Trump supports a Federal UK. We get to be State 52.
New Trumpland it is.
We do of course have Trumpington in Cambridgeshire and Trumps Green in Surrey.
Not to forget Trumpton, about which there was a BBC documentary series in 1967. "Pugh!, Pugh!, Barney McGrew!... "
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
Wonder if there is a statistical bias in the comments of older PBers? The ones who survived to 2025 ...
Good question, but I am surprised I survived the 60s. I used to play in derelict houses, building sites and bomb sites.
Friend of mine used to do that; died of asbestosis as a result.
On general car safety, whenever I watch films from the 60s or 70s I wonder how on earth so many survived driving around in those death traps. Twice, on different occasions, I had friends fall out of a car as it was driving along. They were in the passenger seat and as the car went round a bend, they lurched against the passenger door and it opened and they fell out. They weren't wearing a safety belt, because no-one did in those days. Both survived. One landed on a grass verge, injured his back and had to wear a corset for 6 months. The other fell out at a roundabout. She was in an MG, which was going slowly, but she was lucky not to be run over. Her face was badly bruised. It was the summer when everyone seemed to be wearing a Kaftan so she wore one with the hood up to try to hide her bruises.
The past is a different country.
That's not quite right. In the 1970s 30-40% wore seat belts afaics, and front seat belts were compulsory OE items from the late 1960s.
Though I do recall someone from around 1976 (friend's mum) who was irritated with the seat belt warning on her Volvo, and put the seat belt across the seat then set on it as her driving posture.
My dad deeply resented the 1983 legislation making their wearing compulsory, and flouted the law for years before finally accepting it.
I don't understand the attitude, if evidence exists.
I learnt to drive around then (passed in oct '83), but as a family we always wore seat belts. To me it is like the commuters in the famous World in Action in 1967 defending drink driving.
I have always worn a seat belt if one was present even though it was years before it was compulsory and the early ones were a pain to put on. My first 2 cars were built before seat belts were required, but at least one did have seat belts in the front and I used them. I can't remember for the other car which was even older and my very first car so may not have had belts. I did have to start it every day with a starting handle which is something that anyone under a certain age would be confused by.
My first car was a Mini and my father-in-law worried where I’d put the starting handle. Given that the Mini engine was transverse it would have inserted through one of the front wheels!
As soon as you said Mini I thought 'tricky'. Mine was an Austin A40.
The only trouble I ever had was when I was trying to change a wheel and the (very flimsy) Jack slipped. Luckily I could hold the car up for long enough for my wife to push the new wheel into place.
Gosh. That must have been frightening and pressure on your wife. My reference to tricky was finding the hole for the starting handle on a mini.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Westminster makes it very simple: non-recyclable rubbish (but you can split food waster optionally) and all recycling material together.
They then take the cost of separating out the recycling materials.
If you make it complicated for people some won’t bother to do it. This is just about the governments pushing work onto the residents at a cost to the total amount of recycling
Memories. I failed my first driving test in the days when doing hand signals was part of it. I had my hand out of the window indicating right, and as I changed gears at the same time, for some inexplicable reason the examiner grabbed hold of the steering wheel.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Don't the LDs support a Federal UK?
I'm sur Mr Trump supports a Federal UK. We get to be State 52.
New Trumpland it is.
We do of course have Trumpington in Cambridgeshire and Trumps Green in Surrey.
When Jean Barker was made a peer in 1980, she chose to become Baroness Trumpington, because the other plausible place to adopt (Six Mile Bottom) was too silly.
Memories. I failed my first driving test in the days when doing hand signals was part of it. I had my hand out of the window indicating right, and as I changed gears at the same time, for some inexplicable reason the examiner grabbed hold of the steering wheel.
I'm in the pub and people are wondering why I am laughing.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Westminster makes it very simple: non-recyclable rubbish (but you can split food waster optionally) and all recycling material together.
They then take the cost of separating out the recycling materials.
If you make it complicated for people some won’t bother to do it. This is just about the governments pushing work onto the residents at a cost to the total amount of recycling
The catch is the usual one. The funding the state can gather through the tax system won't pay for that, and making people sort stuff at home is considerably cheaper.
David Walliams is widely known as a creepy, sick fuck. Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
Old comics writing books, and often children's books, seems quite a recent fad. Do they really write them or is there a whole army of ghost writers in play?
David Walliams is widely known as a creepy, sick fuck. Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
Old comics writing books, and often children's books, seems quite a recent fad. Do they really write them or is there a whole army of ghost writers in play?
Nothing new there, they used to have Rent-a-ghosts back in the seventies.
I feel it must be better now as when someone writes most of a book with a bigger name now they usually at least get their name included, eg Wilbur Smith or James Patterson.
That’s not quite the same as ghost writing though. In that case there is a named author who is actually writing the book and the “Wilbur Smith role” is as a plot consultant.
As Wilbur Smith himself died a few years ago they are just using the brand to drive sales and define product positioning
The nativity is the first public sorting most children experience, and it’s definitely sorting rather than sortition.
Some parts have lines, others don’t. The narrator, Joseph, the innkeeper, the wise men and the angel Gabriel have meaningful lines.
There are no female parts with dialogue. As I discovered when our daughter was given the seemingly plum role of Mary only to discover it’s a completely silent part. You just sit there looking demure. Hence the most articulate young girl tends to get the narrator part, and/or they treat the Angels as ladies.
Those vote shares are pretty close to what you’d expect with current class and educational differences in party support, but there’s something else going on too. Look at the Lib Dems: Joseph the top performer, but narrator way down. I would hazard a guess that says something why some people become Lib Dems. We are Josephs, rather than narrators.
I'm not familiar with recent primary school nativities, but how do you have one with a silent Mary - that sounds very untraditional.
If Mary is silent, that is an editorial choice.
What do Roman Catholic Nativities do (with their habit of emphasising the place of Mary)?
(If it were up to me I would include the Annunciation as perhaps the first scene.)
For the conception scene at the very least, you need some dialogue. And, of course, the bit where Mary is at the doctor's office.
Were they concerned she'd require a Caesar Augustus section ?
David Walliams is widely known as a creepy, sick fuck. Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
Old comics writing books, and often children's books, seems quite a recent fad. Do they really write them or is there a whole army of ghost writers in play?
David Walliams is widely known as a creepy, sick fuck. Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
Old comics writing books, and often children's books, seems quite a recent fad. Do they really write them or is there a whole army of ghost writers in play?
Nothing new there, they used to have Rent-a-ghosts back in the seventies.
I feel it must be better now as when someone writes most of a book with a bigger name now they usually at least get their name included, eg Wilbur Smith or James Patterson.
That’s not quite the same as ghost writing though. In that case there is a named author who is actually writing the book and the “Wilbur Smith role” is as a plot consultant.
Yes, but i bet that they didnt use to acknowledge it, so a book by X was mostly written by uncredited Y. Which feels like ghost writing. Now we know sometimes at least.
Almost all autobiographies i assume are ghost written.
Memories. I failed my first driving test in the days when doing hand signals was part of it. I had my hand out of the window indicating right, and as I changed gears at the same time, for some inexplicable reason the examiner grabbed hold of the steering wheel.
I'm in the pub and people are wondering why I am laughing.
They've every right to wonder. If you're in the pub, be 'in the pub' not on your mobile browsing the internet!
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Westminster makes it very simple: non-recyclable rubbish (but you can split food waster optionally) and all recycling material together.
They then take the cost of separating out the recycling materials.
If you make it complicated for people some won’t bother to do it. This is just about the governments pushing work onto the residents at a cost to the total amount of recycling
It's also the case that it's more expensive to separate out recycling than to keep it separate in the first place, and that the quality of the material you get out is worse (i.e. sells for less), because you get a higher rate of contamination (e.g. paper getting soggy from residual liquid in bottles and cans). So you're trading off efficiency of the system against what you can reasonably persuade people to go along with.
When I lived in Japan I had to separate waste into: burnable garbage, non burnable garbage, plastic bottles, other plastic, cardboard/paper, metal cans, bottles. But I think people in Japan are more amenable to following rules like that (and to exerting social pressure on each other to follow the rules).
My dad's "official" vehicle when he was at the High Commission in Nigeria was a LandRover 90 and that came with a starting handle in the late 80s. It also came new from the factory with a broken engine mount which meant it vibrated so much the valve springs couldn't close causing flames to come out of the carb and set fire to the air filter. I stole some rebar off a construction site near our compound and welded up new solid mounts. #britishisbest
Defenders are a hard machine to kill, especially the older models
On the thorny question of waste management, in Newham, for many years, we had just the two bins - one for general waste and one for all recycling including glass. However, we now have a little caddy for our food waste which is apparently a statutory requirement.
Fortunately, we are still on weekly collections for everything but we have to have all the bins by the gate or on the pavement as the poor waste management operatives don't have time to walk on to properties and take bins and then return them. Given we are adding dwellings continuously in Newham, the whole waste management operation has become complex.
He picked off more than he could chew this time, an actual current champion boxer rather than a long-retired one. Something in AJ’s brain flipped when the ref told them to stop pissing around.
Time to stop these farcical WWE-style boxing matches.
Probably going to take somebody being killed by a punch though.
I would have thought there may be a case for prosecution of the promoters of such a blatant mismatch.
Paul is an asshole, but that doesn't justify a public beating.
The people who deserve a public beating are the twats who watch it thinking it entertainment.
A symptom of our times.
Well it’s clearly entertainment, but those paying the bills and promoting it need to be held accountable for such a mismatch.
Look at what F1 did for safety after we all saw Ayrton Senna killed live on TV three decades ago, do the boxing authorities also have to wait until someone dies before they act on these farcical matchups?
Re F1, I don't disagree but why was Senna's death the catalyst for change when the dozens of F1 deaths in the 50s, 60s and 70s were not?
Wikipedia's description of this tragedy is immediately followed by: In an otherwise uneventful race, Jackie Stewart won his 26th...
The answer to the question is partly Sid Watkins but also the zeitgeist. Deaths were seen as normal because they were normal (see also the Isle of Man TT) and even in football, it used to be that injured players would be carried off by the local St John Ambulance volunteers. In ordinary life, ambulance practice was scoop and run rather than trained paramedics on site (although I think that has swung part of the way back).
It wasn't until the early 80s that seatbelts were compulsory. It was a different world before that.
You should have seen some of the rides in public playgrounds.
An old St John Ambulance person told me that back in the 70s, the week of the travelling fairground could be relied on for a couple of broken arms.
They should have held on tighter!
I notice a football match was abandoned the other day because someone died on the terraces. I'm fairly sure back in the 60s the game would have carried on while the SJA stretchered them off around the touchline. 'It's the way he wanted to go,' people might have said, if they gave the matter any thought at all.
My namesake died at Goodison during the Mersey derby. 1980.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Westminster makes it very simple: non-recyclable rubbish (but you can split food waster optionally) and all recycling material together.
They then take the cost of separating out the recycling materials.
If you make it complicated for people some won’t bother to do it. This is just about the governments pushing work onto the residents at a cost to the total amount of recycling
The catch is the usual one. The funding the state can gather through the tax system won't pay for that, and making people sort stuff at home is considerably cheaper.
Warwickshire and Coventry have jointly invested in a state-of-the-art recycling facility that sorts everything automatically, so the only outcome of this unnecessary, one-size-fits-all, typical Labour government dictat will be to stifle compliance at the household end.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Westminster makes it very simple: non-recyclable rubbish (but you can split food waster optionally) and all recycling material together.
They then take the cost of separating out the recycling materials.
If you make it complicated for people some won’t bother to do it. This is just about the governments pushing work onto the residents at a cost to the total amount of recycling
The catch is the usual one. The funding the state can gather through the tax system won't pay for that, and making people sort stuff at home is considerably cheaper.
We've sorted at home in Pembrokeshire for years. It's not difficult. I also notive that recycling percentages are much higher here than in the rest of the UK.
On the thorny question of waste management, in Newham, for many years, we had just the two bins - one for general waste and one for all recycling including glass. However, we now have a little caddy for our food waste which is apparently a statutory requirement.
Fortunately, we are still on weekly collections for everything but we have to have all the bins by the gate or on the pavement as the poor waste management operatives don't have time to walk on to properties and take bins and then return them. Given we are adding dwellings continuously in Newham, the whole waste management operation has become complex.
Segregated fo9d waste collection becomes mandatory next year. Bradford is bringing it in in the autumn.
By contrast, in Ealing they introduced it at least 18 years ago.
The government have left local councils moving to becoming unitaries to decide if they want elections next year, likely for just one year council seats, until the first elections for unitaries are held in 2027
I know that but it looks iffy, is iffy, and the Electoral Commission is not happy
I expect legal action to follow
Id be interested in what the case would be, as i imagine the law gives wide discretion on local elections to ministers, or legislation can be passed to do it.
The government have left local councils moving to becoming unitaries to decide if they want elections next year, likely for just one year council seats, until the first elections for unitaries are held in 2027
I know that but it looks iffy, is iffy, and the Electoral Commission is not happy
I expect legal action to follow
The Tories and LDs postponed the Holyrood elections for a whole year to suit their Westminster priorities. Nothing happened.
I thought Holyrood did that themselves because they wanted to avoid having the Holyrood elections at the same time as the Westminster election. Didn't they switch to five-year terms at the same time?
Okay, so I looked this up. The legislation was passed at Westminster, but all the parties agreed to it, because there was a recommendation not to have elections with different voting systems on the same day. Clegg did offer that the Holyrood elections could have been brought forward a year, but the choice was made to delay instead.
For the next election it was the Scottish government that chose to delay to 2021 to avoid a clash with the Westminster election that was due in 2020 (after the 2015 general election). So, again, this was not imposed on Scotland, and it changed the default term of a Scottish Parliament to five years. By legislation passed at Holyrood.
Why do ScotNats always have to blame everything on Westminster when they've done the thing themselves? It's not like we can't check.
FPT: because Westminster chose to clash in the first place, when it knew that Holyrood's dates were already established.
Exactly , total disregard and just ride roughshod over Scotland when it suits them.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
Bollox, Westminster is the de facto English parliament and overlords the other parts of the UK badly.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Westminster makes it very simple: non-recyclable rubbish (but you can split food waster optionally) and all recycling material together.
They then take the cost of separating out the recycling materials.
If you make it complicated for people some won’t bother to do it. This is just about the governments pushing work onto the residents at a cost to the total amount of recycling
The catch is the usual one. The funding the state can gather through the tax system won't pay for that, and making people sort stuff at home is considerably cheaper.
We've sorted at home in Pembrokeshire for years. It's not difficult. I also notive that recycling percentages are much higher here than in the rest of the UK.
One of Rishi Sunak's multiple absurdities was his war on segregated recycling.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Westminster makes it very simple: non-recyclable rubbish (but you can split food waster optionally) and all recycling material together.
They then take the cost of separating out the recycling materials.
If you make it complicated for people some won’t bother to do it. This is just about the governments pushing work onto the residents at a cost to the total amount of recycling
The catch is the usual one. The funding the state can gather through the tax system won't pay for that, and making people sort stuff at home is considerably cheaper.
Warwickshire and Coventry have jointly invested in a state-of-the-art recycling facility that sorts everything automatically, so the only outcome of this unnecessary, one-size-fits-all, typical Labour government dictat will be to stifle compliance at the household end.
On the thorny question of waste management, in Newham, for many years, we had just the two bins - one for general waste and one for all recycling including glass. However, we now have a little caddy for our food waste which is apparently a statutory requirement.
Fortunately, we are still on weekly collections for everything but we have to have all the bins by the gate or on the pavement as the poor waste management operatives don't have time to walk on to properties and take bins and then return them. Given we are adding dwellings continuously in Newham, the whole waste management operation has become complex.
Segregated fo9d waste collection becomes mandatory next year. Bradford is bringing it in in the autumn.
By contrast, in Ealing they introduced it at least 18 years ago.
Near here they use food waste as fodder for a methane generator to feed a housing scheme or three.
That Trump coin collapse must have deprived many ordinary Americans of a chunk of their savings, yet it doesn’t seem to be that prominent a story in the US media?
Only if they were brain dead morons , bet Trump has many billions from it.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Westminster makes it very simple: non-recyclable rubbish (but you can split food waster optionally) and all recycling material together.
They then take the cost of separating out the recycling materials.
If you make it complicated for people some won’t bother to do it. This is just about the governments pushing work onto the residents at a cost to the total amount of recycling
The catch is the usual one. The funding the state can gather through the tax system won't pay for that, and making people sort stuff at home is considerably cheaper.
We've sorted at home in Pembrokeshire for years. It's not difficult. I also notive that recycling percentages are much higher here than in the rest of the UK.
Yes, *but that's Wales* - it hardly counts as part of the UK, so what the local Ordovician tribespersons do isn't relevant to the imperial overlords. See also: smoking bans in pubs in Scotland.
The government have left local councils moving to becoming unitaries to decide if they want elections next year, likely for just one year council seats, until the first elections for unitaries are held in 2027
I know that but it looks iffy, is iffy, and the Electoral Commission is not happy
I expect legal action to follow
Id be interested in what the case would be, as i imagine the law gives wide discretion on local elections to ministers, or legislation can be passed to do it.
The government have left local councils moving to becoming unitaries to decide if they want elections next year, likely for just one year council seats, until the first elections for unitaries are held in 2027
I know that but it looks iffy, is iffy, and the Electoral Commission is not happy
I expect legal action to follow
The Tories and LDs postponed the Holyrood elections for a whole year to suit their Westminster priorities. Nothing happened.
I thought Holyrood did that themselves because they wanted to avoid having the Holyrood elections at the same time as the Westminster election. Didn't they switch to five-year terms at the same time?
Okay, so I looked this up. The legislation was passed at Westminster, but all the parties agreed to it, because there was a recommendation not to have elections with different voting systems on the same day. Clegg did offer that the Holyrood elections could have been brought forward a year, but the choice was made to delay instead.
For the next election it was the Scottish government that chose to delay to 2021 to avoid a clash with the Westminster election that was due in 2020 (after the 2015 general election). So, again, this was not imposed on Scotland, and it changed the default term of a Scottish Parliament to five years. By legislation passed at Holyrood.
Why do ScotNats always have to blame everything on Westminster when they've done the thing themselves? It's not like we can't check.
FPT: because Westminster chose to clash in the first place, when it knew that Holyrood's dates were already established.
But that was inevitable eventually when Holyrood was on a fixed 4-year cycle and Westminster wasn't. And the main point is that Holyrood could have chosen to do a 3-year Parliament but, surprise surprise, they choose to go to five years. So you can hardly say that Westminster delayed the elections.
You want to be independent but you won't even take responsibility for the decisions you already make.
bollox, they could hav epicked any date but did it just for badness
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Indeed. Labours attempt failed over trying to draw too many regions. Let’s not mess about - everyone knows England consists of the South, the Midlands, and the North, with London on one side. Or Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, as once was. Carve the country outside London into three chunks, and just get on with it.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Westminster makes it very simple: non-recyclable rubbish (but you can split food waster optionally) and all recycling material together.
They then take the cost of separating out the recycling materials.
If you make it complicated for people some won’t bother to do it. This is just about the governments pushing work onto the residents at a cost to the total amount of recycling
The catch is the usual one. The funding the state can gather through the tax system won't pay for that, and making people sort stuff at home is considerably cheaper.
We've sorted at home in Pembrokeshire for years. It's not difficult. I also notive that recycling percentages are much higher here than in the rest of the UK.
Yes, *but that's Wales* - it hardly counts as part of the UK, so what the local Ordovician tribespersons do isn't relevant to the imperial overlords. See also: smoking bans in pubs in Scotland.
Nick Palmer asked: "I was at international (quasi-American) schools and we wouldn't have dreamed of celebrating Christmas or any other religious festivity. I've been surprised to find them ubiquitous in Britain, so I surprise people by looking baffled when they ask if I was an angel or a sheep. Does the US have them?"
Well, in this part of the US (Seattle and suburbs) we don't celebrate Christmas publicly; we celebrate "holidays". And that would be true for public schools, too. (As far as I know, Catholic schools still have relatively traditional celebrations.)
For as long as I can remember, we have had "holiday" trees, rather than Christmas trees, in public. They would look like Christmas trees, but would have, for example, a snowflake on top, rather than a star or an angel. Recently, even these trees have been deemed to be too religious, and have been replaced by what I call "designer trees", for example, trees decorated only with bulbs, in a single color.
Store clerks are instructed to wish customers "happy holidays" and a "Happy New Year", rather than "Merry Christmas".
And so on.
Is it different in other parts of the US? Sure. You want diversity? We've got diversity!
But not having visited any of them at Christmas time, I can't say how different they are.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Indeed. Labours attempt failed over trying to draw too many regions. Let’s not mess about - everyone knows England consists of the South, the Midlands, and the North, with London on one side. Or Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, as once was. Carve the country outside London into three chunks, and just get on with it.
West Country Wessex Thames Valley & Estuary East Anglia & the Levels West Midlands & the Marches East Midlands (Five Boroughs) Lancashire & Cheshire (Counties Palatine?) Yorkshire Northumbria Cumbria
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Indeed. Labours attempt failed over trying to draw too many regions. Let’s not mess about - everyone knows England consists of the South, the Midlands, and the North, with London on one side. Or Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, as once was. Carve the country outside London into three chunks, and just get on with it.
West Country Wessex Thames Valley & Estuary East Anglia & the Levels West Midlands & the Marches East Midlands (Five Boroughs) Lancashire & Cheshire (Counties Palatine?) Yorkshire Northumbria Cumbria
And there in two posts is why it will never happen.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Indeed. Labours attempt failed over trying to draw too many regions. Let’s not mess about - everyone knows England consists of the South, the Midlands, and the North, with London on one side. Or Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, as once was. Carve the country outside London into three chunks, and just get on with it.
West Country Wessex Thames Valley & Estuary East Anglia & the Levels West Midlands & the Marches East Midlands (Five Boroughs) Lancashire & Cheshire (Counties Palatine?) Yorkshire Northumbria Cumbria
And there in two posts is why it will never happen.
Personally I think counties and metros should be main organising unit, with regions being collaborative fora mainly focusing on regional transport planning, culture and tourism.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Indeed. Labours attempt failed over trying to draw too many regions. Let’s not mess about - everyone knows England consists of the South, the Midlands, and the North, with London on one side. Or Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, as once was. Carve the country outside London into three chunks, and just get on with it.
West Country Wessex Thames Valley & Estuary East Anglia & the Levels West Midlands & the Marches East Midlands (Five Boroughs) Lancashire & Cheshire (Counties Palatine?) Yorkshire Northumbria Cumbria
And there in two posts is why it will never happen.
Personally I think counties and metros should be main organising unit, with regions being collaborative fora mainly focusing on regional transport planning, culture and tourism.
Personally I think we should take the ten largest urban areas* out of the equation, and have a Parliament for the rest based somewhere central - Lichfield or Kenilworth perhaps.
That would dramatically alter the 'balkanisation of England' equation.
That's a third post showing why it will never happen...
*Broadly defined, I would expect that to be London, Birmingham and environs possibly including Coventry, Manchester ditto, Liverpool ditto, Southampton/Portsmouth, Nottingham/Derby, Leeds/Bradford/Wakefield/Dewsbury/Huddersfield, Sheffield/Rotherham, Bristol, Newcastle and various towns nearby.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Indeed. Labours attempt failed over trying to draw too many regions. Let’s not mess about - everyone knows England consists of the South, the Midlands, and the North, with London on one side. Or Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, as once was. Carve the country outside London into three chunks, and just get on with it.
West Country Wessex Thames Valley & Estuary East Anglia & the Levels West Midlands & the Marches East Midlands (Five Boroughs) Lancashire & Cheshire (Counties Palatine?) Yorkshire Northumbria Cumbria
Southern Westward Harlech Associated Anglia Yorkshire Granada Tyne-Tees Border
Bonus points for separate authorities running London during the week and at weekends.
Double bonus points if the same politicians run the Midlands during the week and London at weekends.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Indeed. Labours attempt failed over trying to draw too many regions. Let’s not mess about - everyone knows England consists of the South, the Midlands, and the North, with London on one side. Or Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, as once was. Carve the country outside London into three chunks, and just get on with it.
West Country Wessex Thames Valley & Estuary East Anglia & the Levels West Midlands & the Marches East Midlands (Five Boroughs) Lancashire & Cheshire (Counties Palatine?) Yorkshire Northumbria Cumbria
Memories. I failed my first driving test in the days when doing hand signals was part of it. I had my hand out of the window indicating right, and as I changed gears at the same time, for some inexplicable reason the examiner grabbed hold of the steering wheel.
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Indeed. Labours attempt failed over trying to draw too many regions. Let’s not mess about - everyone knows England consists of the South, the Midlands, and the North, with London on one side. Or Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, as once was. Carve the country outside London into three chunks, and just get on with it.
West Country Wessex Thames Valley & Estuary East Anglia & the Levels West Midlands & the Marches East Midlands (Five Boroughs) Lancashire & Cheshire (Counties Palatine?) Yorkshire Northumbria Cumbria
The West Country and Wessex are the same surely?
I was thinking of Wessex as Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset; and West Country as Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, and Greater Bristol.
(Gloucestershire I put into the West Mids, which obviously wouldn’t be popular, but that region is in my view unfairly truncated away from its Severn outlet).
One of the few good things this government has announced is more funds for Crown courts to sit on more days each year. Given the amount of extra tax this government has raised at least a fraction of it is being spent sensibly
There seems to be another good thing around, which is standardisation of recycling materials and bins across England.
Oh FFS. Dump the lot in one bin and let the recyclers sort it out, rather than continue with silly games and fines for putting red litter in the green bin, if we really need the same rules in Carshalton as Carlisle, which tbh is not immediately clear.
ETA what Alphabet_Soup said.
One of the reasons for fines and over-enforcement is horribly complex and different rules for different places, and for different types of recycling.
I think standardisation will be far better.
Unfortunately there isn't an English Government to do that
There is, tbf, it's called the one in Downing St. They just devolve the non-English bits. They even have a dept for overseeing local government in the rest and all (I forget what it's called these days, I can never keep up). But historically it used to oversee local gmt in Scotland and Wales as well, before the administrative devolutions a century and a quarter ago in the panic over Irish demands for independence and what would the nearer locals think?
It's about time we had a proper Federal system.
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Indeed. Labours attempt failed over trying to draw too many regions. Let’s not mess about - everyone knows England consists of the South, the Midlands, and the North, with London on one side. Or Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria, as once was. Carve the country outside London into three chunks, and just get on with it.
West Country Wessex Thames Valley & Estuary East Anglia & the Levels West Midlands & the Marches East Midlands (Five Boroughs) Lancashire & Cheshire (Counties Palatine?) Yorkshire Northumbria Cumbria
The West Country and Wessex are the same surely?
Certainly overlap, though i'd say Wessex extends eastwards beyond the West Country.
Comments
I expect there will be some private operators who offer 'just one bin for everything' and make a fortune. I'd sign up just to avoid the nanny statism of policies like this.
Bet the lanyard wearing classes will love it tho. More petty rulemaking is right up their strasser...
In most federations, "territories" ie the bits directly ruled by the Federal government, are marginal and underpopulated places.
In the UK it is England with maybe 85% of the population.
The current local government reorganisation is a complete dog's breakfast, and unlike the Scots, Norm Irish and Welsh, we are not allowed to say how to do it ourselves and have to be directed by the Imperial parliament at Westminster
Harper-Collins need to have their ducks in a row in contractual and evidence terms.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/david-walliams-allegations-dropped-publisher-harpercollins-b2888213.html
(We have copies. There are worse things than dreadful childrens' books.)
And if everything is dumped in the same recycling bin, the recycling plants can easily sort it out at their end. Simple and standard.
Open secret for years and years.
His kid’s books suck, too.
But it was not exactly rare back then.
How 🇷🇺Putin and 🇸🇦MBS got Witkoff to take the lead in 🇺🇸American diplomacy on Russia and Ukraine, and how Kellogg was pushed aside after turning down Russia’s pre-inauguration entreaty relayed via Tucker Carlson.
https://x.com/yarotrof/status/2002299059990642777
Given that the Mini engine was transverse it would have inserted through one of the front wheels!
An author ive read quite a bit lately, JD Kirk, used to write children's books but has now transitioned to the apparently more lucrative field of violent scottish noir crime thrillers.
Just that, like all of Walliam’s comedy work, they have a mean-spirited “punching down” tone.
Compare with Dahl who is of course horribly rude about his characters but always viewed through the eyes of the innocent (Charlie, Matilda, Danny etc) - following in the footsteps of Dickens. Mrs Trunchbull is a grotesque because she wields abominable, sadistic power over Matilda.
Those wanting to give out eight bins aren’t interested in maximising recycling, they’re interested in maximising purchases of bins and income from fines.
I'm not interested in regional Parliaments or Assemblies though collaborative working across regions involving several councils already exists.
Q: Why do the British drink warm beer?
A: Because Lucas also make fridges.
Re double declutching I do that now even though I have never owned a car without synchromesh and learnt it much later in driving. It is a sensible thing to do prior to overtaking, changing down prior to a bend or having to change down going up a hill.
All parties talk up empowering local communities, but tend to go vague when it's time to try it.
Though since councils are mostly social care organisations with a few bits attached, theres little they can do now.
You are supposed to stick them out BEFORE you turn so everybody has a f*****g clue where you are going.
Westminster makes it very simple: non-recyclable rubbish (but you can split food waster optionally) and all recycling material together.
They then take the cost of separating out the recycling materials.
If you make it complicated for people some won’t bother to do it. This is just about the governments pushing work onto the residents at a cost to the total amount of recycling
How times change.
As Wilbur Smith himself died a few years ago they are just using the brand to drive sales and define product positioning
https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mag7myutmc2d
I do like this though
Almost all autobiographies i assume are ghost written.
This photo, file 468, from the Epstein files that includes Donald Trump has apparently now been removed from the DOJ release.
AG Bondi, is this true? What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.
https://bsky.app/profile/oversightdemocrats.house.gov/post/3magqb3l3kc2s
When I lived in Japan I had to separate waste into: burnable garbage, non burnable garbage, plastic bottles, other plastic, cardboard/paper, metal cans, bottles. But I think people in Japan are more amenable to following rules like that (and to exerting social pressure on each other to follow the rules).
On the thorny question of waste management, in Newham, for many years, we had just the two bins - one for general waste and one for all recycling including glass. However, we now have a little caddy for our food waste which is apparently a statutory requirement.
Fortunately, we are still on weekly collections for everything but we have to have all the bins by the gate or on the pavement as the poor waste management operatives don't have time to walk on to properties and take bins and then return them. Given we are adding dwellings continuously in Newham, the whole waste management operation has become complex.
By contrast, in Ealing they introduced it at least 18 years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/21/rishi-sunak-seven-bins-green-pledge-social-media
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consistency-in-household-and-business-recycling-in-england/outcome/government-response
"I was at international (quasi-American) schools and we wouldn't have dreamed of celebrating Christmas or any other religious festivity. I've been surprised to find them ubiquitous in Britain, so I surprise people by looking baffled when they ask if I was an angel or a sheep. Does the US have them?"
Well, in this part of the US (Seattle and suburbs) we don't celebrate Christmas publicly; we celebrate "holidays". And that would be true for public schools, too. (As far as I know, Catholic schools still have relatively traditional celebrations.)
For as long as I can remember, we have had "holiday" trees, rather than Christmas trees, in public. They would look like Christmas trees, but would have, for example, a snowflake on top, rather than a star or an angel. Recently, even these trees have been deemed to be too religious, and have been replaced by what I call "designer trees", for example, trees decorated only with bulbs, in a single color.
Store clerks are instructed to wish customers "happy holidays" and a "Happy New Year", rather than "Merry Christmas".
And so on.
Is it different in other parts of the US? Sure. You want diversity? We've got diversity!
But not having visited any of them at Christmas time, I can't say how different they are.
(Autocorrect actually did try to make that 'erecting.')
Wessex
Thames Valley & Estuary
East Anglia & the Levels
West Midlands & the Marches
East Midlands (Five Boroughs)
Lancashire & Cheshire (Counties Palatine?)
Yorkshire
Northumbria
Cumbria
That would dramatically alter the 'balkanisation of England' equation.
That's a third post showing why it will never happen...
*Broadly defined, I would expect that to be London, Birmingham and environs possibly including Coventry, Manchester ditto, Liverpool ditto, Southampton/Portsmouth, Nottingham/Derby, Leeds/Bradford/Wakefield/Dewsbury/Huddersfield, Sheffield/Rotherham, Bristol, Newcastle and various towns nearby.
Westward
Harlech
Associated
Anglia
Yorkshire
Granada
Tyne-Tees
Border
Bonus points for separate authorities running London during the week and at weekends.
Double bonus points if the same politicians run the Midlands during the week and London at weekends.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RTjWkdd86hA
(Gloucestershire I put into the West Mids, which obviously wouldn’t be popular, but that region is in my view unfairly truncated away from its Severn outlet).