blandy

Off topic, really, but it's not remotely surprising once you realise that much of what's published is basically stories nicked off each other.

Yes. French design plus Chinese money, in simple terms.

There's a first for everything!

There's a whole branch of engineering based around safety. The principle here is ALARP - as low as reasonably practicable. Hazards (the potential for bad things to happen) need to be mitigated such that the risk of them occurring is ALARP - if the hazard is a minor one - say someone falling over and hurting themselves, the mitigation might be a warning sign "beware of the step", but you wouldn't go to redesigning the who building to remove all the steps. However if the hazard was a catastrophic one - "radiation leak leading to multiple fatalities" then the ALARP argument says that a warning sign is not adequate mitigation. Pretty much everything is dangerous, or has the potential to be so, the more dangerous the consequences, the more measures (and money) need to be implemented to prevent the danger.

Last week wind electric was going for under 40 quid a megawatthour, and by the time Hinkley comes on line, if it ever does, windy watts will be even cheaper still. I think there's a massive issue with the reactor design as well. Got to be a good chance the thing will get canned. I posted this in the wrong thread because I'm a nidiot

French. French designed. Oh, cripes!

I don't think that's a question of any value at all, really. Because the Gov't couldn't have presented a stronger case. Their lawyers did the best they could with thin gruel. edit - hadn't seen the posts just above when I typed this.

I'm not demanding they have an argument in public. I've noticed they already do that, anyway! I'm advocating that Jeremy Corbyn's position is confused and confusing. I could hazard a guess that it's because his and his close advisors are at odds with the vast majority of Labour supporters, members MPs and voters. I could further point out 3 options therefore exist. 1. Swallow their own views, because Labour is a broad church and clear that it wants members to determine policy. 2. Hold true to their personal, minority view and demand that the majority accept the Leader's position as policy 3. Fudge it. They chose 3. That's their right and sort of tenable-ish, as an attempt to hold together disparate views and their party. But having seen them do that, I feel justified to comment that it is indeed a fudge, a ropy compromise that satisfies no-one and when exposed to the electorate more widely will fall very flat indeed (IMO). Further, I think that it won't work longer term in achieving this "unity" that they want, because it's such a strong issue, and they are very much in the minority. I'm demanding nothing, only commenting that they've a difficult choice, sure, but made an unprincipled choice and once more failed to show good judgement. I don't envy his choice, but I think he's made the worst one of the three possibilities. Enjoy your evening anyway, HV.

My vote, in my safe Tory seat has zero value. I cast it every single time for the person who I percieve has the least worst chance of beating the incumbent tory, or if none, the party who most deserves the few pence my vote gets them in funding. Labour has effectively turned itself into another unvotable party for me. They're basically dead to me now, under Corbyn.

No. Jeremy says he will negotiate a Labour Deal with the EU. He says it will be good for jobs and the environement and etc. - that's him saying that, promising that. That's his policy, to do that. Ask him will he recommend the outcome of his own negotiations, conducted on his terms, to the public and it's er, ....."hello, hello, is there anyone there? Jeremy. Jeremy.....the light's on, but ...."

Thanks. I don't need them to, no, you're right. I'll tell you what though, they're making a fine job of signalling who I should not vote for.

Well, I think (and maybe it's just me) that the Prime Minister, the Government of the Day, the Opposition and Leader of the Opposition - all those types of people - people either in power, or who hope to be in power are able, capable of making an assessment of what they believe the best path for the country, the best option on an issue is. Brexit and the consequences is the biggest, most significant issue of all, and a political leader who is unable, unwilling or incapable of both forming a judgement and then putting forward that judgement, explaining why is not fit to lead."I don't know" or "I do know, but I'm not going to say" are just ludicrous positions for a Prime Minister to hold. Further, as Chrisp pointed out last week, trying to negotiate whilst failing to say whether whatever (hypothetical) deal he might get would be something he'd actually go on to support in a referendum is the worst negotiating position you can hold. TL;DR Why does it matter if a politican is capable of making a decision? that's what they're for.

You haven't finished the second one HV. There's the whole business about not stating or deciding which of the two hypothetical options they will prefer or recommend. LDs: Right now, as an oppo party - support ref, campaing to remain. LDs if Gov't: Revoke. Lab: Right now, as an oppo party, support a Labour Brexit or a Referendum, maybe, or an election, but not right this moment, but they do want an election, then win the election, then spend 6 months negotiating with Brussels, then hold a referendum on whatever that results in - the Labour Brexit, we assume - then refuse to say whether they are in favour of their own deal or remain, then see what happens. Yeah, both the same level of complexity, for sure.

What do they manufacture? Not much is it? - Firesticks and those book reader thingies? The sort of item that is made by Google and Apple and Huwawei...abroad. Sure they're a seller of online goods, a provider of online TV, like Netflix and a maker of gadgets, to an extent - I don't think the wage thing is a factor in terms of competition in the UK. I see other factors as being the issue in the UK. Their practices in dealing with people who sell on there as independent retailers and their lower costs from dominant market position. I'm not a big fan of Amazon, but I see min wage as (in their case) kind of irrelevant to their practices or dominance.

Yes, this I think. All of the things that have affected VIlal this season - not getting a pen at Spurs for McGinn being chopped down, the Bournemouth player and his repeated fouls, the Palace no goal, the Arsenal no pen, the Arsenal player in the wall - all of those, every last howler would still have had exactly the same adverse impact if there were no VAR. It isn't righting wrongs - referee mistakes - it's pretty much just cancelling out the odd goal here and there. That's not the fault of VAR technology or the people operating it, that's the fault of the way the Prem League has chosen to use it. and not use it. It's much much worse than is the case at the World Cup etc.

Isn't that even worse (if you're a Labour Momentum type)? Eton and those ones are funded by poshos and whatnot paying wedges for their offspring to get taught how to wreck the Country. Corbz's one gets/got money from the taxpayer to do the same. Priveleged kids getting a leg up from the state. None of them pay any/many taxes. Better surely to take away their charitable status and stop giving them dosh than abolish them, if that's your (not you Xann, but anyone) political bent

I don't get that point. Before the Min wage, they could set their wages to what they wanted. Now they have to set them to a legal level which is the same as the legal level for Waterstones or HMV or whoever. It's not the min wage that gives them their advantage, it's lack of high street rental, economy of scale, the internet generally, range of stock, door to door delivery etc. surely.

Like Jeremy on Brexit Objection? I'm not sure I'm making an objection. More a (slightly satirical, albeit oblique) comment that people who went to Private schools include almost the entire Tory cabinet, a place filled with liars, incompetents and hypocrits and that on the other side Corbyn, Seamus Milne and Lansman etc are also ex-public school pupils. And the absolute lot of them are a shower of words removed. Utterly unfit, for multiple reasons to hold any kind of office. Not a good advert for posho, paid for, education. i.e. if Corbz "the absolute (public school) boy" is really against public schools, because they gave us Johnson and Rees Mogg and Cummins and "look what those frightful chaps are doing to our Country, we can't have public schools producing all our Political leaders" - then he, as an ex-public schoolboy (a dim one, true) ought to make himself redundant. But anyway, here they all are, all the public schoolboys, telling us what we can and can't do, with their sense of superiority and entitlement and a "the rules don't apply to us" outlook.

No, the masses generally. Tory poshos and Labour poshos telling us we've got to have fracking or can't have windfarms, or must have no deal brexit or etc.

Well, to be fair, given that Corbz, Seamus and a host of his advsors are ex-public school and also that most of the Tory leadership lot are too, you could see why he'd want to abolish it, as the whole lot of them are grossly incompetent. Or it might be a guilt thing. Priveleged poshos telling the masses what's good for them.

Yeah, possibly. I’d say they shouldn’t be “favourable” to anyone. It’s when they are that the problems start. Their news is sort of lost, they’ve lost their compass, they’ve lost their assurance really.

Peace loving Switzerland, Ireland and others use referenda for major changes. It’s not referenda themselves that are necessarily the flaw, more the way ours was subject to so much dishonesty, cheating and so on was a major factor as well as a lack of information about what we were actually, in reality, voting for.

Only if Burnley fill their allocation, or they only take the downstairs part, fill that and the upper part is offered to home fans and sells out.