chrisp65

43 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

One for the unpopular opinions thread, but I consider Yorkshire puddings to be the most overrated food items ever. They're inoffensive enough, but just... meh. 

A full roast dinner is greater than the sum of its parts.

Somehow, in the last few weeks, we have absolutely nailed the recipe and cooking of Yorkshire puddings. Now, self assessment is a wonderful thing, but they are genuinely the best.

46 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

The whole point of cups is you can just scoop to the top and you're done. If you've got to faff around only filling up to a specific line, levelling it within the container, putting a bit more in or taking some out, it's kind of pointless, just use the grams and weigh it properly

Yep, that’s where our cups are super easy, all colour coded. A blue cup of ‘x’ and a yellow cup of ‘y’.

As you say, no measuring no adding and subtracting small amounts, just scoop, tap, go. 

35 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Without question. Canned beer would always have a slight metallic tang to it.  But my main objection is can or bottle over a Cask beer. 

That’s genuinely a level of palate or taste that’s above mine. If I was around someone’s house and they handed me a glass of beer there is zero chance I could tell if it had been poured from a can or bottle, unless I saw it.

I use a set of cups for those simple little recipes that are just easier with cups. Just something simple like, for instance, porridge. Getting the proportion of oats to milk correct is super fast and super easy using cups. Idiot proof every time. 

Are people suggesting that in a blind tasting they could tell whether a beer originated from a can or a bottle?

Or is this purely an aesthetics bias?

Yeah, my Les Big Byrd is delayed somewhere on the M4, so in the meantime, yet another ‘last’ Scratch album, Heaven.

Several years ago we were attempting to collaborate with a U.S. based aero engine company. They were using what they described as metric inches. That is to say, they would tell us a measurement and it would be expressed to 4 decimal places of an inch. So for instance they’d tell us something had to be 393.7008 inches. But when we converted that, it was apparent really quickly that was 10000mm. So we were asking for the original source material, and they always claimed their inches were the original design dims. Like bollocks they were.

5 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Nope. 

The earth is curved.  

Yeah, you just swallow whatever line the man feeds you. WAKE UP!

1 minute ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Although Sunak is certain to retain his Richmond seat, a lot of Tory voters feel so betrayed by the present government, that they want to see the end of the Conservative party according to Peter Hitchens.

Yep, I’m half way there with that sentiment.

Anybody still using any imperial measurements is sub human scum and easily the dumbest person in the room by a country mile.

24 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

I've often thought about this, as someone who was a little 'un at the time and wasn't really directly affected by it.

From a modern perspective, the concept of men going into mines to dig up coal is so archaic and, in fact, seems pretty distasteful in many ways.

So, was the real problem with the shutting down of the coal mining not the end aim of removing that industry, but the manner in which is it was done? The timescales, the pension issues, the police behaviour etc.? Because I cannot imagine any world in which manual coal mining would still be a thing now.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Thatcher in any way at all, I'm just curious what people think the "best" solution should have been to this assuming that we should have arrived ultimately at a point where coal mining was a thing of the past anyway.

It was the manner of what happened. It was an industry that needed reform, but the way it was done was contrived to extract a crushing victory, enabled by an egotistical NUM leadership that didn’t spot coal reserves being built up in preparation, didn’t go for a proper ballot of members, and began a coal strike in Spring and through the summer. An ugly trap was set and the idiot jumped on it. 

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

It's less than 2.5m, that bit isn't a problem. 

The bit I'm confused about is whether it needs to be 2m from the boundary or not.

Some sources say less than 2.5m high AND at least 2m from a boundary. Some say less than 2.5m IF it's less than 2m from a boundary

From the planning portal:

Quote

Maximum height of 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within two metres of a boundary

Are there any real world examples of Boeing actually hiring inferior pilots?

Do you know the height dimension of the shed? 2.5m is fairly tall for a shed.

For info., you can erect a fence on your boundary without permission that is 2.0m tall, so if the shed was 2.0m or less then it wouldn’t be an issue.

If it’s taller than that, then unfortunately it might be down to local quirks in planning and if you’re on a relatively new estate you might even need permission from the original builder. Easiest route, is to know how big a shed it is, work out how much it would stick above the garden wall, if it’s more than 2.0metres tall and could be seen by the neighbour, just knock on their door, say hi, and tell them your plan.

If you go on the planning portal, it should ask you to put your post code in and direct you to your local planners advice page. But there is info down the planning page I’ve linked that might be sufficient for you.

43 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

How much difference in kg/CO2 is there between a 2024 petrol range rover which does 5,000 miles a year or a 2006 VW Passat 2.0l which does 20,000 miles a year?  Could the Passat owner work from home, but chooses not to?

The last few pages on this are ridiculous without any numbers being shown.

Why not stop a cruise liner leaving port? After all, a cruise ship's average journey is equivalent to 1 million cars on the road, and that's just to take people on a 2/3 week jolly.

What about the 400 private jets landing locally to the NFL Superbowl?  They emit around 45kgCO2 per mile.  The average trip was 1,000 miles.

A Google tells me a new range rover emits the equivalent of 3.72kgCO2 for every 10Km.

Where do you stop the micro analysis of an average person?  The person in a new range rover probably has a better insulated house and keeps their ASHP on for 2/3 hours a day, whereas someone on average income probably forgets to have their 20 year old boiler turned off and keep it at a nice 23C for the dog.

It's all **** nonsense.  

It's the environmental equivalent of the Daily Mail.  Stop looking at individuals who don't actually do that much harm and focus on the big shit.  

I thought the original post was about the campaign letting down or puncturing tyres on bigger cars.

That campaign, or certainly the europe wide version of it that has been going a while, is not solely about carbon emissions. It embraces the whole problem with bloated cars in an urban environment, sharing streets with much smaller and softer users.

But it’s easier to just write it off as not thought through, or jealousy, or not considering whether someone has photo voltaics on their roof as a trade off for dominating the streets.

But it’s not like I’m their spokesperson, it might just be they don’t like G Wagons but would be ok with a similar sized Fiat, as some on here believe.