It looks like my two most recent posts have been removed. Does that mean I'm banned! There was nothing offensive in either of them but maybe these days it's hard to tell.
It looks like my two most recent posts have been removed. Does that mean I'm banned! There was nothing offensive in either of them but maybe these days it's hard to tell.
Looking over the tables, I note that the of the 8 best 3rd placed teams, only Ghana and Paraguay are still in, and only because they haven't played their R32 matches yet.
I think Ghana is the only one with a realistic chance of progression.
48 teams is simply too many teams for a tournament.
Depends a bit what the tournament is for. If it's to find the best national football team in the world, it's silly and wasteful of everyone's time. If it's to have a simply ginormous football party, bigger is better. Plus, the telly rights are presumably still selling well.
Looking over the tables, I note that the of the 8 best 3rd placed teams, only Ghana and Paraguay are still in, and only because they haven't played their R32 matches yet.
I think Ghana is the only one with a realistic chance of progression.
48 teams is simply too many teams for a tournament.
Depends a bit what the tournament is for. If it's to find the best national football team in the world, it's silly and wasteful of everyone's time. If it's to have a simply ginormous football party, bigger is better. Plus, the telly rights are presumably still selling well.
Ultimately, it is a bit of fun.
Sure, and mostly the matches are watchable.
But if that is the point, why not go the whole hog and abandon qualifiers?
Looking over the tables, I note that the of the 8 best 3rd placed teams, only Ghana and Paraguay are still in, and only because they haven't played their R32 matches yet.
I think Ghana is the only one with a realistic chance of progression.
48 teams is simply too many teams for a tournament.
Depends a bit what the tournament is for. If it's to find the best national football team in the world, it's silly and wasteful of everyone's time. If it's to have a simply ginormous football party, bigger is better. Plus, the telly rights are presumably still selling well.
Ultimately, it is a bit of fun.
Sure, and mostly the matches are watchable.
But if that is the point, why not go the whole hog and abandon qualifiers?
Go like Wimbledon and have the top 128 teams in the first round, and knock-out throughout.
This pub furniture on the Thames path in Strand-on-the-Green is a story that could go on a bit, as it is culture war plus local councillors who really do not like each other, and local politics in Chiswick is quite vigorous anyway. I lived on Park Road down there for about 3 years in the early 2000s, in a slightly expensive but very enjoyable one bedroom flat.
(One note: take care not to confuse your Hiltons. I think the protagonist is Alistair Hilton, who is claiming the Green Councillor set the police on him and to my eye overegging his pudding a little - it could go legal, with Adrian Hilton, who is in the debate but is I think the former "Archbishop Cranmer" blogger.)
The basic issue is about unlawful obstructions (the pub outdoor tables and chairs) on a public highway - the Thames Path, which here is either a Public Footpath, or an Adopted Highway in the relevant places. Two pubs, as 'landowners', seem to feel that that, and that they have been doing it for some years, means they should be able to continue to do it without a pavement license.
The local Conservative Councillor (and the Telegraph and the Standard and GB News) have weighed in in support of the pubs (and their customers who like sitting on the Thames Path), and it was a Green Councillor who made a report to ask that it be looked at, around accessibility for less mobile pedestrians to Pass and Repass along the Thames Path unobstructed.
Given my penchant for removing obstructions from public highways so mobility aids can use them, it will be clear where I stand - as long as the path is fully accessible (and there are endless technicalities about how wide it is, and what type of highway it is in each place) and easily useable, they can put their tables there provided there is a license and no obstruction. IMO here the clear path should be 4m wide.
The Council Officers were abrupt in their demands for removal, and after a word from the local councillor have now backed down to say "you can keep your tables whilst we thin about it), which is how it should have been in the first place.
The various bits of media are trying to make this about authoritarian Councils and Councillors banning outside drinking (which is afaics a lie, not that that will stop them), and police vs freedom of speech (around Hilton's twitter comments).
This could run and run. My prediction is that the pubs will cathc up to what the law requires, and then the seating will continue with appropriate adjustments.
All the pubs are recommended. I used to go on riverside dates down there.
4m wide seems very wide for a pathway. Presumably that to allow (for example) two wheelchair users to pass each other, but wouldn’t it be better to have passing bays? Otherwise I doubt that any riverside path in the country will be compliant with your demands
I promise not to take you down a rabbit hole but I'll put a bit of information on the bone !
We have a disease in this country of taking pedestrian space down to the absolute minimum, which makes using footpaths unpleasant when there is a fair amount of foot traffic, and that causes conflict which no one wants. The attitude is nasty, and small minded, and I hate it.
But we have several different recommended widths (Inclusive Mobility, LTN 1/20 and others), depending on volume, transport mode, and purpose. As a matter of principle, the space on a public highway belongs to the public, not to a private business who want to put their stuff on it for their own benefit. Landowners are always trying to do that, and they need to be less selfish. 4m is roughly where it is for a high foot fall environment, and I am making it slightly wider than minimum because using a footpath includes stopping to take in the view, to sit on a bench for a rest, and so on, which I think are common in Strand-on-the-Green.
The required width for a mobility aid to travel safely and comfortably is 1.5m width unobstructed, since the things themselves are up to about 1.0m, sometimes 1.2m, and extra width is required simple eg wheelchairs require width for hands outside to do wheeling. For two way that is 3.0m, minimum. And I don't accept lamp posts, sign posts, pedestrian cages, litter bins, cross pathway advertising hoardings where phone boxes used to be, Horse's f*cking Brobdingnagian phone masts, and all the rest as not being obstructions; they should be off the clear footway - but that is a slightly different tack !
On passing places, I reject the idea out of hand - except for special circumstances such as a pre-existing constraint. We build our normal carriageways for vehicles to be 5.5m width, so two can pass, except where eg we need traffic calming because many drivers cannot control themselves. The principle is precisely the same for footpaths and footways - imo if we think it through, that is a very basic, unarguable implication of Equality Law. Why should we make wheelchair users use passing spaces in everyday travel, when we do not do so for people who are less marginalised, and the facilities for pedestrians cost such little money?
We had an interesting debate the other week about Delivery Robots, which I have been feeding back as "expect serious resistance if you try to prevent these without a very carefully argued case". The association has a new Chairman, who did a very interesting presentation about developing values and a strategy for their centenary, here - provocative, but not especially radical:
But just to focus on the passing places. Let’s say that you have a riverside path that is 5m wide. I’m guessing you need about 2.5m to accommodate a table and two chairs.
But under your approach that is unacceptable in case there is a scenario where two wheelchair users need to pass each other. So the vast majority of people don’t get to enjoy the path.
My approach represents a reasonable accommodation; create a passing place so wheelchairs don’t lose the ability to pass each other, but also enable to space to be shared by others. But apparently that is so unacceptable as to be “rejected out of hand”
Thanks for elaborating. I disagree with your suggestion, but finding an accommodation is why we have local licenses, laws, and committees and councillors to consider needs and the law, and to come up with such an accommodation - which can then be appealed (i think) or challenged in court by either side if it is thought problematic.
The primary value I try and think from in this is equality. We do no allow pubs to spread their tables and chairs across the public highway ie the carriageway on your road or my road, and make all the cars wait in a passing place to wait and squeeze through one by one. Why should we impose that on mobility aid users of the public highway? I see no difference in principle.
Practically a passing place will not work - outside a pub it will have half-drunk people standing in it much of the time. There will be some who think it funny to poke, prod, throw beer, call them a spaz or similar, or do other things. And even sober people are fairly often abusive or threatening or even violent when asked to accommodate. Try asking some selfish parents parking on the yellow zigzag lines outside a primary school to drop off children, putting the other children at risk, to stop doing it (school staff will be abused if they try to act), or ask someone blocking a Zebra zig-zags or a drop kerb to move, and see what the response is. Mobility aid users will not often do that, because they have been verbally abused before and cannot run away - they are vulnerable.
Yes - 4.5m is ambitious, albeit arguable from national guidelines, but one always gets less than asked for so it is good to start thinking from the actual recommendations for good practice. Often much more is possible by being innovative than one expects.
In the case of the City Barge in @Malmesbury 's photo there is 4.25m from the face of the pub wall to the railing on the river edge. The tables take up ~2m perhaps with an extra chair on the end, and I think a shelf on the railing, which would have 0.6-0.8m of people leaning on it. That leaves about 1.5m.
I'd say a practical answer here could be French style 0.8m round cafe tables against the pub wall, taking up 1.2m max, a clear 3m path marked with a line, no shelf on the railing, and moveable chairs and tables if wanted placed on the concrete (?) tidal apron when the tide is out - which in that part of Chiswick is a lot of the time.
But that’s exactly the point. On narrow roads we *do* use passing points for cars.
It’s simply a question of utility. Your suggestion is not a compromise. It’s an insistence on an outcome that gives you all you want and prevents anyone else sharing the space in a reasonable manner.
I was proposing a 4.5m pathway with 2.5m for the table and chairs and 2m to allow full mobility. The only constraint there is when two full width mobility devices need to pass each other. In reality how often does that happen?
In my view there are serious conceptual and legal problems with this idea.
The Thames Path is not analogous to an unclassified single track road somewhere in back end of Shropshire, or one of my backland routes into Derbyshire - it is the most important public footpath in London.
I think in my view you are proposing a compromise with a business that has no reasonable expectation of a compromise since their obstruction of the public highway is unlawful, and you therefore giving away far more than is reasonable. Why should a private business be able to annexe more than half of a public highway for their own purposes? We do not compromise with Travellers who want to camp in our parks, and I would not be allowed to extend my garden across 60% of the road outside because I want space for my children to have a trampoline.
And I don't see the difference - there is no "both sides" to this. This is pedestrian space - essentially full stop, and a pub obstructing it is in the same category as a farmer blocking a public footpath with his tractor or his haystack, or me blocking the road outside with an extension to my garden.
A pavement license is a limited and privileged exception to the legal rule, and I see no reason why there should be any compromise of the lawful public use of the ROW beyond the minimal, if any at all. I do take a moderately strong stance on this, since there is a hell of a long way to push the pendulum back to create a balanced culture around these questions.
We'll see where the Council come down.
PS You may enjoy this account of what happens if pavement tables go too far. A friend went into a shop in York after wheeling along the pavement, and by the time she came out the pavement in both directions was entirely blocked by cafe tables they had put out on both sides, and she was trapped.
Point of order, the Thames Path is a public footpath but it is not a public highway in the way you are intimating. As such the rules about blocking it do not apply as they do on the road. There are rules about maintaining access including disabled access but the analogy with blocking either a road or a pavement alongside a road is not correct. There are different rules for each
Thanks a for the reply and the POI. I think you may be drawing a distinction without a difference, though I welcome the opportunity to explore a little further.
According to Hounslow Council, the particular section of Thames Path we are discussing, which is the Strand-0n-the-Green section, is an "Adopted Footway" (in the category "Highway Maintainable at Public Expense"), from when it leaves Thames Road to follow the riverbank to when it rejoins Thames Road (according to the map linked below *). There is a narrow section outside Ship Cottage, and another narrow section marked City Barge pub (27 Thames Street), which are marked as "Unadopted Public" and the one at the City Barge has been occupied by eg with balconies. Their tables are on the "Adopted Footway".
The public (including users of Classified Mobility Aids ** ) have a right to pass and repass over Adopted Footway such as the SOTG riverside path, and it is in the same category as a footpath alongside a carriageway. The same S137 of the Highways Act also applies to it aiui, according to various references.
So I think my analogy holds, in the absence of further detail.
** Don't ask for detail; this is Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 Aids, but others do *not* strictly have that right since the law is 55 years out of date. Wheels for Wellbeing just spent months on a consultation on this and sent in a dense 27,000+ word submission. Printed out, it rolls up like a Millwall Brick.
Senior officials in President Trump’s administration have privately warned that appointing Ed Miliband as chancellor would be a “mistake”
High-ranking US officials have told their counterparts in Britain, as well as senior Labour figures, that they are concerned about Miliband’s opposition to new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea
Breaking: FIFA announce England's game against Mexico has been moved to 1st December to give Keir Starmer time to decide what time pubs should shut during the game.
Starmer interviewed on BBC earlier. He says you can’t separate foreign policy from domestic policy and effectively states that he is now a foreign policy expert and UK’s foreign policy wins are his most important achievements.
Now I don’t think this will happen - but consider this syllogism.
Premise 1. Serving the country matters more to Starmer anything else in his life. (his claim)
Premise 2. Starmer is a foreign policy expert whose greatest achievements as PM have been his foreign policy wins. (his belief).
Conclusion. Starmer would accept the role as next Foreign Secretary if offered it by PM Burnham as he believes he is the best person for the job and wants to serve the country above everything else.
I’ve had £20 at 16/1 on Starmer being next Foreign Secretary. (I’ve also had £5 at 44 that Rachel Reeves will be replaced as C of E in 2027 or later. Unlikely also - but the odds look too big to me).
This pub furniture on the Thames path in Strand-on-the-Green is a story that could go on a bit, as it is culture war plus local councillors who really do not like each other, and local politics in Chiswick is quite vigorous anyway. I lived on Park Road down there for about 3 years in the early 2000s, in a slightly expensive but very enjoyable one bedroom flat.
(One note: take care not to confuse your Hiltons. I think the protagonist is Alistair Hilton, who is claiming the Green Councillor set the police on him and to my eye overegging his pudding a little - it could go legal, with Adrian Hilton, who is in the debate but is I think the former "Archbishop Cranmer" blogger.)
The basic issue is about unlawful obstructions (the pub outdoor tables and chairs) on a public highway - the Thames Path, which here is either a Public Footpath, or an Adopted Highway in the relevant places. Two pubs, as 'landowners', seem to feel that that, and that they have been doing it for some years, means they should be able to continue to do it without a pavement license.
The local Conservative Councillor (and the Telegraph and the Standard and GB News) have weighed in in support of the pubs (and their customers who like sitting on the Thames Path), and it was a Green Councillor who made a report to ask that it be looked at, around accessibility for less mobile pedestrians to Pass and Repass along the Thames Path unobstructed.
Given my penchant for removing obstructions from public highways so mobility aids can use them, it will be clear where I stand - as long as the path is fully accessible (and there are endless technicalities about how wide it is, and what type of highway it is in each place) and easily useable, they can put their tables there provided there is a license and no obstruction. IMO here the clear path should be 4m wide.
The Council Officers were abrupt in their demands for removal, and after a word from the local councillor have now backed down to say "you can keep your tables whilst we thin about it), which is how it should have been in the first place.
The various bits of media are trying to make this about authoritarian Councils and Councillors banning outside drinking (which is afaics a lie, not that that will stop them), and police vs freedom of speech (around Hilton's twitter comments).
This could run and run. My prediction is that the pubs will cathc up to what the law requires, and then the seating will continue with appropriate adjustments.
All the pubs are recommended. I used to go on riverside dates down there.
4m wide seems very wide for a pathway. Presumably that to allow (for example) two wheelchair users to pass each other, but wouldn’t it be better to have passing bays? Otherwise I doubt that any riverside path in the country will be compliant with your demands
I promise not to take you down a rabbit hole but I'll put a bit of information on the bone !
We have a disease in this country of taking pedestrian space down to the absolute minimum, which makes using footpaths unpleasant when there is a fair amount of foot traffic, and that causes conflict which no one wants. The attitude is nasty, and small minded, and I hate it.
But we have several different recommended widths (Inclusive Mobility, LTN 1/20 and others), depending on volume, transport mode, and purpose. As a matter of principle, the space on a public highway belongs to the public, not to a private business who want to put their stuff on it for their own benefit. Landowners are always trying to do that, and they need to be less selfish. 4m is roughly where it is for a high foot fall environment, and I am making it slightly wider than minimum because using a footpath includes stopping to take in the view, to sit on a bench for a rest, and so on, which I think are common in Strand-on-the-Green.
The required width for a mobility aid to travel safely and comfortably is 1.5m width unobstructed, since the things themselves are up to about 1.0m, sometimes 1.2m, and extra width is required simple eg wheelchairs require width for hands outside to do wheeling. For two way that is 3.0m, minimum. And I don't accept lamp posts, sign posts, pedestrian cages, litter bins, cross pathway advertising hoardings where phone boxes used to be, Horse's f*cking Brobdingnagian phone masts, and all the rest as not being obstructions; they should be off the clear footway - but that is a slightly different tack !
On passing places, I reject the idea out of hand - except for special circumstances such as a pre-existing constraint. We build our normal carriageways for vehicles to be 5.5m width, so two can pass, except where eg we need traffic calming because many drivers cannot control themselves. The principle is precisely the same for footpaths and footways - imo if we think it through, that is a very basic, unarguable implication of Equality Law. Why should we make wheelchair users use passing spaces in everyday travel, when we do not do so for people who are less marginalised, and the facilities for pedestrians cost such little money?
We had an interesting debate the other week about Delivery Robots, which I have been feeding back as "expect serious resistance if you try to prevent these without a very carefully argued case". The association has a new Chairman, who did a very interesting presentation about developing values and a strategy for their centenary, here - provocative, but not especially radical:
But just to focus on the passing places. Let’s say that you have a riverside path that is 5m wide. I’m guessing you need about 2.5m to accommodate a table and two chairs.
But under your approach that is unacceptable in case there is a scenario where two wheelchair users need to pass each other. So the vast majority of people don’t get to enjoy the path.
My approach represents a reasonable accommodation; create a passing place so wheelchairs don’t lose the ability to pass each other, but also enable to space to be shared by others. But apparently that is so unacceptable as to be “rejected out of hand”
Thanks for elaborating. I disagree with your suggestion, but finding an accommodation is why we have local licenses, laws, and committees and councillors to consider needs and the law, and to come up with such an accommodation - which can then be appealed (i think) or challenged in court by either side if it is thought problematic.
The primary value I try and think from in this is equality. We do no allow pubs to spread their tables and chairs across the public highway ie the carriageway on your road or my road, and make all the cars wait in a passing place to wait and squeeze through one by one. Why should we impose that on mobility aid users of the public highway? I see no difference in principle.
Practically a passing place will not work - outside a pub it will have half-drunk people standing in it much of the time. There will be some who think it funny to poke, prod, throw beer, call them a spaz or similar, or do other things. And even sober people are fairly often abusive or threatening or even violent when asked to accommodate. Try asking some selfish parents parking on the yellow zigzag lines outside a primary school to drop off children, putting the other children at risk, to stop doing it (school staff will be abused if they try to act), or ask someone blocking a Zebra zig-zags or a drop kerb to move, and see what the response is. Mobility aid users will not often do that, because they have been verbally abused before and cannot run away - they are vulnerable.
Yes - 4.5m is ambitious, albeit arguable from national guidelines, but one always gets less than asked for so it is good to start thinking from the actual recommendations for good practice. Often much more is possible by being innovative than one expects.
In the case of the City Barge in @Malmesbury 's photo there is 4.25m from the face of the pub wall to the railing on the river edge. The tables take up ~2m perhaps with an extra chair on the end, and I think a shelf on the railing, which would have 0.6-0.8m of people leaning on it. That leaves about 1.5m.
I'd say a practical answer here could be French style 0.8m round cafe tables against the pub wall, taking up 1.2m max, a clear 3m path marked with a line, no shelf on the railing, and moveable chairs and tables if wanted placed on the concrete (?) tidal apron when the tide is out - which in that part of Chiswick is a lot of the time.
But that’s exactly the point. On narrow roads we *do* use passing points for cars.
It’s simply a question of utility. Your suggestion is not a compromise. It’s an insistence on an outcome that gives you all you want and prevents anyone else sharing the space in a reasonable manner.
I was proposing a 4.5m pathway with 2.5m for the table and chairs and 2m to allow full mobility. The only constraint there is when two full width mobility devices need to pass each other. In reality how often does that happen?
In my view there are serious conceptual and legal problems with this idea.
The Thames Path is not analogous to an unclassified single track road somewhere in back end of Shropshire, or one of my backland routes into Derbyshire - it is the most important public footpath in London.
I think in my view you are proposing a compromise with a business that has no reasonable expectation of a compromise since their obstruction of the public highway is unlawful, and you therefore giving away far more than is reasonable. Why should a private business be able to annexe more than half of a public highway for their own purposes? We do not compromise with Travellers who want to camp in our parks, and I would not be allowed to extend my garden across 60% of the road outside because I want space for my children to have a trampoline.
And I don't see the difference - there is no "both sides" to this. This is pedestrian space - essentially full stop, and a pub obstructing it is in the same category as a farmer blocking a public footpath with his tractor or his haystack, or me blocking the road outside with an extension to my garden.
A pavement license is a limited and privileged exception to the legal rule, and I see no reason why there should be any compromise of the lawful public use of the ROW beyond the minimal, if any at all. I do take a moderately strong stance on this, since there is a hell of a long way to push the pendulum back to create a balanced culture around these questions.
We'll see where the Council come down.
PS You may enjoy this account of what happens if pavement tables go too far. A friend went into a shop in York after wheeling along the pavement, and by the time she came out the pavement in both directions was entirely blocked by cafe tables they had put out on both sides, and she was trapped.
Point of order, the Thames Path is a public footpath but it is not a public highway in the way you are intimating. As such the rules about blocking it do not apply as they do on the road. There are rules about maintaining access including disabled access but the analogy with blocking either a road or a pavement alongside a road is not correct. There are different rules for each
Thanks a for the reply and the POI. I think you may be drawing a distinction without a difference, though I welcome the opportunity to explore a little further.
According to Hounslow Council, the particular section of Thames Path we are discussing, which is the Strand-0n-the-Green section, is an "Adopted Footway" (in the category "Highway Maintainable at Public Expense"), from when it leaves Thames Road to follow the riverbank to when it rejoins Thames Road (according to the map linked below *). There is a narrow section outside Ship Cottage, and another narrow section marked City Barge pub (27 Thames Street), which are marked as "Unadopted Public" and the one at the City Barge has been occupied by eg with balconies. Their tables are on the "Adopted Footway".
The public (including users of Classified Mobility Aids ** ) have a right to pass and repass over Adopted Footway such as the SOTG riverside path, and it is in the same category as a footpath alongside a carriageway. The same S137 of the Highways Act also applies to it aiui, according to various references.
So I think my analogy holds, in the absence of further detail.
** Don't ask for detail; this is Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 Aids, but others do *not* strictly have that right since the law is 55 years out of date. Wheels for Wellbeing just spent months on a consultation on this and sent in a dense 27,000+ word submission. Printed out, it rolls up like a Millwall Brick.
I think you are looking into this in too much detail. Since the Equalities Act 2010 Councils are supposed to enforce disabled access on ALL public rights of way including footpaths. This includes trying to remove stiles which, personaly, I think is a bloody stupid thing to insist on.
But two points with that. That does not mean public footpaths are treated the same as highways or pavements. So your earlier comments about encroaching on roads is not valid. And the recommendation from the LGA is that footpaths should be clear to a width of 1.5m to 2m. Not that they should be kept clear enough for two mobility devices to pass each other along their entire length. There is nothing illegal about encroaching on a public right of way as long as it remains clear to allow all legal users to pass.
Starmer interviewed on BBC earlier. He says you can’t separate foreign policy from domestic policy and effectively states that he is now a foreign policy expert and UK’s foreign policy wins are his most important achievements.
Now I don’t think this will happen - but consider this syllogism.
Premise 1. Serving the country matters more to Starmer anything else in his life. (his claim)
Premise 2. Starmer is a foreign policy expert whose greatest achievements as PM have been his foreign policy wins. (his belief).
Conclusion. Starmer would accept the role as next Foreign Secretary if offered it by PM Burnham as he believes he is the best person for the job and wants to serve the country above everything else.
I’ve had £20 at 16/1 on Starmer being next Foreign Secretary. (I’ve also had £5 at 44 that Rachel Reeves will be replaced as C of E in 2027 or later. Unlikely also - but the odds look too big to me).
Not the first politician to do "serving the country comes first" and "my family comes first" altenately as and when required. I mean, I understand, but really.
England-Mexico kick-off unchanged after Fifa U-turn
England's World Cup last-16 tie against Mexico will kick-off at 01:00 BST on Monday after a Fifa U-turn on plans to bring the game forward.
Fifa held talks with the English and Mexican football associations on Friday after proposing the match be moved to 19:00 BST on Sunday (12:00 local time).
Weather forecasts suggest there could be thunderstorms at that time, though Fifa has not provided any explanation for its proposed change.
Sources told BBC Sport that Fifa had been set to make the change, and confirm the rescheduling in a statement, but news of the proposal angered both English and Mexican officials.
As a result, the game in Mexico City is now due to be played at its original kick-off time of 18:00 local time on Sunday.
Starmer interviewed on BBC earlier. He says you can’t separate foreign policy from domestic policy and effectively states that he is now a foreign policy expert and UK’s foreign policy wins are his most important achievements.
Now I don’t think this will happen - but consider this syllogism.
Premise 1. Serving the country matters more to Starmer anything else in his life. (his claim)
Premise 2. Starmer is a foreign policy expert whose greatest achievements as PM have been his foreign policy wins. (his belief).
Conclusion. Starmer would accept the role as next Foreign Secretary if offered it by PM Burnham as he believes he is the best person for the job and wants to serve the country above everything else.
I’ve had £20 at 16/1 on Starmer being next Foreign Secretary. (I’ve also had £5 at 44 that Rachel Reeves will be replaced as C of E in 2027 or later. Unlikely also - but the odds look too big to me).
I dont think its necessarily a bad bet but is it wise for Burnham to keep Starmer so close once he is defenestrated?
Starmer quite clearly feels "wronged" by all this, and probably thinks he did much of the hard work getting the Lab majority in 2024, rather than the Tory implosion post Boris and covid.
So now his pitch seems to be that as an elder statesman he would be a safe pair of hands as FS in a turbulent world.
As for Reeves, surely she will follow the PM out the door this year, deservedly so after her carpet bagging photoshoot antics. I wonder if Burnham will go for a "northern" Chancellor - would Bridget Philippson be an improvement on the incumbent? Other than that what would his options be - Pat McFadden? I can't really see many credible Scottish choices given how new the Slab contingent of MPs are. Ed M feels more London based despite representing a Yorkshire seat
A site where people like @Roger tells lies about me is not for me any more.
I responded to a poster saying that no-one gave a fuck about Gaza by saying that some people do care a lot and then went on to say that the death of civilians was a tragedy. As well as being one of this site's worst misogynists with a penchant for targeting me in particular (though I imagine any woman with opinions is a problem for him) he also has a problem with English comprehension.
I have no time or energy for people like him. And his presence makes the forum more unpleasant than it should be.
So bye.
Oh no, no Cyclefree please don't leave the site! You make an amazing contribution here with your detailed thoughtful and insightful articles as well as your comments in the threads. I don't always agree with your political stance here but I always respect it and take your point of view on board especially due to your incredible background knowledge of the law and how it plays out politically at our Westminster Parliament. What ever I am when it comes to being a tribal Scottish Conservative, I am a stronger supporter of that Parliament functioning as a collective body to hold the Government of the day to account who ever is in power.
I only wish we had more Cyclefree's up here in Scotland at Holyrood, it would be a far better place as a result! And while I am at it tonight, I really want to see JosiasJessop back posting here if he is still around lurking?! I did not know why you left, but I think I got the gist and understand it after one night lurking here and I hope you and your wife will come back because I got the same shade here many years ago and its why Fitaloon left and wanted me to do the same.
But Cyclefree and JosiasJessop don't let the sods get you down, if you leave they win and this site would become even poorer without you both....
- We cannot afford to lose any female contributors to this forum - there are only a few anyway
Totally agree Big_G_Wales, sadly we have lost too many female contributers on this site due to ill health and I am now only in contact with one former regular here who has no desire to return. But its up to this site and the now regular contributors here to decide if they are man enough to cope with even a few more women contributers here to shake things up. But judging by their dismissive attitude to Kemi Badenoch, I suspect not, and they are in their boring comfort zone and want to keep this a left leaning blinkered Dad-centric mans shed when it comes to politics with a dismissive attitude to powerful women in general despite their many talents....
I agree more F on here would be good, and that some of the tone isn't welcoming to women, but I don't buy the rest of what you're saying. It isn't that left leaning. There's loads of right wing posters. And it isn't particularly down on Kemi Badenoch. Compared to the vitriol about Keir Starmer she gets an easy ride.
And with Cyclefree, she may be outnumbered by the blokes but she receives (rightly) a great deal of respect and appreciation. She's the Killer Queen of PB and imo does not need 'the board' rising up to slag off other posters in order to make her stay. She'll continue to post if she wants to and I very much hope she does.
Came in on this a bit late.
Israel/Gaza seems to have this effect. I try to avoid discussing it these days, because no one ever changes their mind, almost irrespective of events, and I have a fairly strong contempt for the leadership of both sides.
I will really miss Cyclefree if she does go. No doubt there are good reasons for deciding you've had enough of PB, but literally anything Rogerdamus might come up with would not be high on my list.
Dry your eyes, CF isn't going anywhere. The attention seeking windbag has flounced more times than I've missed penalties.
I would just like to say @Cyclefree leaving us because of unjustified accusations by @Roger is a real low, and I appeal to this forum to show wholeheartedly support for her to reconsider and stay and for @Roger to apologise
I haven't flagged this post, but of I had read It earlier I would have considered it. You quite regularly pile on to posters you disagree with, asking for bans and apologies to yourself and other posters.
You might not like @Roger and his posts but then you don't like mine, or Horse's posts and several others not like minded to yourself.
It would be a shame if we lost @Cyclefree and although I am not a big fan of her Trans related headers, there is a place for them on a First Amendment site like this one, even if another poster, for particularly personal reasons finds the analysis extremely offensive.
As for @Roger I like his posts on the whole. "Me Too" wasn't his finest hour but I agree entirely with his conclusions about Netanyahu, Ben G'Vir and Smotrich, and despite Barty's regular protestations that Gazans deserved all they got I agree fully with Roger. The Hamas attack on the Kibbutz AND the razing of Gaza are both stains on humanity.
Please refrain from demanding red cards for anyone you disagree with.
When did I demand a red card for him
Many came out in support of @Cyclefree on here tonight and you have no justification for personalising this to me
Maybe you should join the support for @Cyclefree and understand what she was accused of was simply wrong
Who is the immature wanker flagging posts they don’t like? Seriuosly folks. The flag should bre for things that may get the site in trouble. Don’t like a post? Write one saying why.
Starmer interviewed on BBC earlier. He says you can’t separate foreign policy from domestic policy and effectively states that he is now a foreign policy expert and UK’s foreign policy wins are his most important achievements.
Now I don’t think this will happen - but consider this syllogism.
Premise 1. Serving the country matters more to Starmer anything else in his life. (his claim)
Premise 2. Starmer is a foreign policy expert whose greatest achievements as PM have been his foreign policy wins. (his belief).
Conclusion. Starmer would accept the role as next Foreign Secretary if offered it by PM Burnham as he believes he is the best person for the job and wants to serve the country above everything else.
I’ve had £20 at 16/1 on Starmer being next Foreign Secretary. (I’ve also had £5 at 44 that Rachel Reeves will be replaced as C of E in 2027 or later. Unlikely also - but the odds look too big to me).
I dont think its necessarily a bad bet but is it wise for Burnham to keep Starmer so close once he is defenestrated?
Starmer quite clearly feels "wronged" by all this, and probably thinks he did much of the hard work getting the Lab majority in 2024, rather than the Tory implosion post Boris and covid.
So now his pitch seems to be that as an elder statesman he would be a safe pair of hands as FS in a turbulent world.
As for Reeves, surely she will follow the PM out the door this year, deservedly so after her carpet bagging photoshoot antics. I wonder if Burnham will go for a "northern" Chancellor - would Bridget Philippson be an improvement on the incumbent? Other than that what would his options be - Pat McFadden? I can't really see many credible Scottish choices given how new the Slab contingent of MPs are. Ed M feels more London based despite representing a Yorkshire seat
Bridget isn’t the answer to anything really.
She has no substance to her.
Move Yvette to Chancellor if the optics of having a woman there are really that important to Burnham.
When the site is already 98% male, it's a shame to lose one of our female posters who also happens to write some of the most interesting comments and headers.
Every time I've placed a bet on the underdogs during this world cup they've lost, so I've decided not to place any bets this time in case it jinxes it, lol.
Comments
Ultimately, it is a bit of fun.
But if that is the point, why not go the whole hog and abandon qualifiers?
Goalhanger...
According to Hounslow Council, the particular section of Thames Path we are discussing, which is the Strand-0n-the-Green section, is an "Adopted Footway" (in the category "Highway Maintainable at Public Expense"), from when it leaves Thames Road to follow the riverbank to when it rejoins Thames Road (according to the map linked below *). There is a narrow section outside Ship Cottage, and another narrow section marked City Barge pub (27 Thames Street), which are marked as "Unadopted Public" and the one at the City Barge has been occupied by eg with balconies. Their tables are on the "Adopted Footway".
The public (including users of Classified Mobility Aids ** ) have a right to pass and repass over Adopted Footway such as the SOTG riverside path, and it is in the same category as a footpath alongside a carriageway. The same S137 of the Highways Act also applies to it aiui, according to various references.
So I think my analogy holds, in the absence of further detail.
* Enter Address: W4 3PH to find it into the interactive map.
https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/roads-streets/public-rights-of-way
** Don't ask for detail; this is Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 Aids, but others do *not* strictly have that right since the law is 55 years out of date. Wheels for Wellbeing just spent months on a consultation on this and sent in a dense 27,000+ word submission. Printed out, it rolls up like a Millwall Brick.
Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford
EXCLUSIVE:
Senior officials in President Trump’s administration have privately warned that appointing Ed Miliband as chancellor would be a “mistake”
High-ranking US officials have told their counterparts in Britain, as well as senior Labour figures, that they are concerned about Miliband’s opposition to new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea
Half time
Good effort by CPV so far
Now I don’t think this will happen - but consider this syllogism.
Premise 1. Serving the country matters more to Starmer anything else in his life. (his claim)
Premise 2. Starmer is a foreign policy expert whose greatest achievements as PM have been his foreign policy wins. (his belief).
Conclusion. Starmer would accept the role as next Foreign Secretary if offered it by PM Burnham as he believes he is the best person for the job and wants to serve the country above everything else.
I’ve had £20 at 16/1 on Starmer being next Foreign Secretary. (I’ve also had £5 at 44 that Rachel Reeves will be replaced as C of E in 2027 or later. Unlikely also - but the odds look too big to me).
But two points with that. That does not mean public footpaths are treated the same as highways or pavements. So your earlier comments about encroaching on roads is not valid. And the recommendation from the LGA is that footpaths should be clear to a width of 1.5m to 2m. Not that they should be kept clear enough for two mobility devices to pass each other along their entire length. There is nothing illegal about encroaching on a public right of way as long as it remains clear to allow all legal users to pass.
1 - 1
England's World Cup last-16 tie against Mexico will kick-off at 01:00 BST on Monday after a Fifa U-turn on plans to bring the game forward.
Fifa held talks with the English and Mexican football associations on Friday after proposing the match be moved to 19:00 BST on Sunday (12:00 local time).
Weather forecasts suggest there could be thunderstorms at that time, though Fifa has not provided any explanation for its proposed change.
Sources told BBC Sport that Fifa had been set to make the change, and confirm the rescheduling in a statement, but news of the proposal angered both English and Mexican officials.
As a result, the game in Mexico City is now due to be played at its original kick-off time of 18:00 local time on Sunday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgmz3jyq9qo
Starmer quite clearly feels "wronged" by all this, and probably thinks he did much of the hard work getting the Lab majority in 2024, rather than the Tory implosion post Boris and covid.
So now his pitch seems to be that as an elder statesman he would be a safe pair of hands as FS in a turbulent world.
As for Reeves, surely she will follow the PM out the door this year, deservedly so after her carpet bagging photoshoot antics. I wonder if Burnham will go for a "northern" Chancellor - would Bridget Philippson be an improvement on the incumbent? Other than that what would his options be - Pat McFadden? I can't really see many credible Scottish choices given how new the Slab contingent of MPs are. Ed M feels more London based despite representing a Yorkshire seat
Incredible to think Vozinha is without a club
Don't downvote, respond.
She has no substance to her.
Move Yvette to Chancellor if the optics of having a woman there are really that important to Burnham.
Not sure I can stay awake for the extra time though
Come on Cape Verde!
They have promised the broadcasters exclusive windows for each knockout match.
If Brazil v Norway goes to extra time and penalties then that would clash with Mexico v England kicking off at 11pm.