blandy

Because I can’t stand the sound, basically. [I’m the same with Queen]. Also because it was played so many times on the radio when it was released. And it’s dreary and sad.

Get in! Wordle 1,019 2/6*

Indeed. Though they can't rape female prisoners if they're in a male prison, and that seems to be the issue for one camp.

It kind of is. You can either vote for the Tory and therefore be a mug, or vote for Labour, who are apparently just as bad, and thus be a mug, or you can vote for a tiny yellow or Green or Reform party, and see one of the big blue or red parties get in, like the mug that (non-specific) you are, or you can stay at home and see exactly the same thing happen, mug muggety mug mugs.

You may not have heard of it, because it’s rare. But it’s also fact and reality. It’s happened multiple times and Prisons are usually the location, though not exclusively. People with todgers being put in women’s prisons because they either identified as women, or had been gender reassigned as women and then going on to sexually assault other prisoners. That’s obviously a lamentable situation. I guess the question is how do you stop that and also stop completely innocent and decent trans people from being discriminated against or victimised. There’s kind of 2 extreme camps (can I say camp?). One is shouting for the rights of Trans people trumping the rights of women born as women, and the other is shouting for the rights of born women trumping the rights of trans people. And then each calls the other haters and dangerous and evil and…so much noise, so little understanding.

Wordle 1,018 4/6* that’s sent me off listening to something unutterable.

That’s the thing with being publicly owned. The government of the day can be as dreadful an owner as some private company. “Yeah, nationalise it, and put Chris Grayling in charge, that’ll sort out all the problems”.

There's 5 - Sweet, Sour, Umami, Spicy and er, another one, innit. Probably salty or bitter or something - I believe that's a Small Heath speciality, that last one. What a thicko.

Only because when Thatcher privatised it, she wrote off the debt of the nationalised water company which was in 1989 £5 billion. They were all loss making when publicly owned too. Obviously the privatisation has made things worse, with all the dividends and stuff taken out. Rot in Hell, Thatch.

I guess the share price will currently reflect the situation - uncertainty over the future, and without looking it up, I assume it's fallen recently. If the company and the government come to some sort of compromise then things (and the share price) will change again (back upwards). The current situation, where the shareholders are refusing to put in 500 million more quid, [because (in their view) it's just gonna be money down the drain for them, as they don't view the constraints of Ofwat to make cash injection tenable] is them playing hardball as a gambit, really, I think. It's a move to try and get some concession around the stringency and timeframe of the regulatory requirements Ofwat imposes (under the direction of parliament). So like I say, if there's some alleviation of that, then the share price goes back up, the shareholders inject the cash, and the customers of Thames water get higher bills, but the Taxpayer generally does not pay. It's a split cost between the shareholders and the customers. Thames water's profits have slumped, and it's got a mountain of debt (much of which was accumulated via paying out dividend historically). Essentially, currently and recently its income is not enough to cover daily costs plus obligations to fix all the stuff that's decrepit and broken and lacking. And the shareholders won't give it more money, and so far borrowing more from other markets looks a non-starter. So yes they're potentially up shit creek. The thing is, and this is where I guess we see the solution differently, I think that changing the ownership of the company makes zero actual problems go away. The things that need fixing, in terms of infrastructure and pipes and stuff need fixing whoever owns it. The cost will be the same under either ownership model. Being parochial in the extreme, why should my taxes go up to fix a bunch of stuff caused by a privatised London company's mismanagement and shenanigans? The shareholders, directors and (sadly) customers need to be on the hook for the fixes. You're right about the behaviour of the people that broke it, and that's where they need to be held accountable and held responsible for fixing it, not given the easy way out of just hand it all back and leave us lot to pick up the pieces. Ban them from holding directorships, fine them, lock them up if they've done anything criminal. Stop the transfer of assets from one part of the web of companies (the actual, regulated, water bit) under the Thames water umbrella to another part(s). They've properly taken the piss, and the tories have let them. But anyway, I'm pretty sure it's not the end of the saga. And, also, while Thames water is particularly rotten and broken and may end up (worst case) back in public ownership, it's not the case with every other water company - a national, er, nationalisation of all the companies is unnecessary in terms of addressing the various problems. It might be ideologically preferable, but given the general state of everything, there are bigger issues that need sorting out first, and time and resources spending on, for the next government.

Wordle 1,017 5/6*

Wordle 1,016 5/6*

Self destructive behaviour.

Yep, I agree with that. It’s an interesting contrast to look at who has been allowed to own critical national infrastructure like water and power and compare that to Tories doing their nut and blocking forrins from owning the Daily Telegraph, their in house loo roll of choice. Many if not all the water companies have set up matrixes of companies that shuffle funds between them, such that the declared dividends to shareholders are only a part of the money going out (and, to be fair, in). And the government and Ofwat have, unsurprisingly, been behind one or more steps behind in terms of stopping it.

Wordle 1,015 4/6*

I **** hate that song, and indeed just about everything they’ve ever done. But that one the most.

Yeah, it is a kind of blackmail - like I said "who blinks first" at the moment. But it is a reason to consider that if the government is forced (they really don't want to, for all kinds of reasons) to take over a failed private utility company, and as you say "The old shareholders get **** all" that (in this case) BT workers and Uni workers will suffer as their pension schemes will lose a ton of money from their pensions....and in the course of time, the government will have to act to help them. I'm not proposing a course of action, just pointing out that the utter mess, whichever way it's dealt with, will have wider consequences than it might appear at first. It should never have been privatised, but once it has been, you kind of can't get the egg yolks back out of the omelette without hurting all kinds of innocent people, whichever way you try - taxpayers, BT workers, Lecturers, Hedge funds, employees of the water company, creditors owed money for work they did for the company...customers... These companies, knowing they can basically just throw in the towel and walk away, leaving us all to pick up the pieces, it's quite wrong.

It's nit picking, but isn't 6 fewer than whether you add in an extra row or not

17 + 6 = 23

I recall the re profiling was done because there were so many complaints about lack of legroom after the Witton lane was turned into a 2 tier stand. The asbestos was found on the first rebuild, wasn't it? oh, and your maths stinks . But you're right about blocking the view from the corner of the Holte!

Duplicate File Finder It’s free and finds duplicate files and photos

Water chat moved here

Kind of. But it’s an everybody loses scenario. I believe BT workers and Uni workers pension funds are significant shareholders. So those people suffer too. All the contractors and creditors who are owed money, they get shafted to the tune of close to 2 billion quid. And the public, we get shafted, because the work to stop the pollution and leaks and repair sewers and the like. That still needs doing and paying for. So now the taxpayer has to pay for it. Taxpayers in Brum and Manchester have to pay to fix London’s water. It’s the worst option, but potentially the final option if all others fall through. Other options include the government giving (via OFWAT) some wider leeway for the company to sort shit out - more time over which to spread the costs and then the shareholders pump more money in. But that lets the company fail to meet standards when other companies are not given that permission. like I posted earlier it’s kind of a who blinks first, bluff calling stage at the moment.

I posted this on the old VT front page in 2002

Wordle 1,014 4/6*