Steven P

Of course, I forget your monopoly on working. Working on Daily Mail Rage Bingo, this weekend it must be green energy weekend I guess. None of the links below are my opinions but peer reviewed articles. In the short to medium term nuclear power is not viable, oil and fossil fuels not sustainable. Only other options are renewable or turning the lights off. Hinkley C, a joint venture EDF (Electricity De France) and General Nuclear Corporation (China). British involvement... digging holes and pouring concrete. Rolls Royce small and medium reactors are a few years away from being licensed, and to speed that up are requiring about a billion in investment.. which the UK government declined to invest in. They are looking at 2050 to have an established market. Rolls-Royce SMR - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG Oil reserves are not my assessment, 60 years, I was wrong when I said 40 above. List of countries by proven oil reserves - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

This chart: Onshore wind is the cheapest electricity generation. Nuclear figures doesn't usually account for reprocessing the spent fuel. Windfarms might be an eyesore to some but would you prefer a nuclear power station in your town.. and thinking of where we put them, nuclear power plants in the UK take about 20+ years from agreement to build one through buying the land, planning, construction and so on, a wind farm about 5. The UK and Europe has the technology for wind farms... nuclear it is China selling their expertise at say, Hinkley (the UKs new nuclear power station) 20+ years and we will be running short of electricity by then, the world will also have half the oil resources left as it does now (I think it is about 40 years oil supply.... at todays rate of use.. which doesn't account for Africa, India and China (outside the cities) joining the modern world where electricity is king, and oil to make it will be sold to the highest bidder) .. and our children and grandchildren will have about 5 years to solve the problems of electricity generation, supply and cost unless we give them a head start now and start making it in a sustainable way so we can power the world for the next 100 years. As I said above he is delaying the changes necessary because the governments have not invested in infrastructure to allow these changes to happen now.

To be fair I tend to agree with some of what he said - there was a bit on question time questioning some of his announcement (7 wheelie bins...), The boiler thing tend to agree with that. Suggesting we change a boiler for a heat pump won't work for older houses, new builds probably though. Should be used in addition to a boiler to keep a house warm rather than heat it up (needs a different mind set that the heat pumps run all the time, boiler is on / off). Electric cars - too soon for a mass changeover, I don't think the country can install the infrastructure needed in time and solve problems such as how do you charge a car at home if you park on the street and not trip up every pedestrian with a trailing wire. and a massive infrastructure upgrade to send renewable electricity from generation to the cities. Not sure if 2035 will be soon enough either to get it all working in the background... but sooner is better than later Then he went a bit mad about 7 wheelie bins and meat North Sea OIl, I reckon we should keep on as we are doing for a while until we can generate our electricity from other means - wind energy for example is cheaper which was his last point and also good to allow more onshore wind generation.. but as above, need to get the wind energy from windy places to the cities.

See the title, put the fire on this morning. Not even October yet - the thermometer says it is OK, suspect air is a bit damp so draft from the fire should sort that for a few days

I can see a side line here, I have string, I have a door and if that doesn't work a cross pein hammer (more accurate than a claw hammer I think but that's the last option, hook the claw under the tooth and pop)

Your title says hard wood, are you particular for wanting what everyone else wants? This week I have had 4 (ford focus) car loads of leylandii (boot + back seat till I worry about the suspension) just from being out and about and asking. The ash tree next to it... the house owners had that but the soft wood "help yourself"

Detracting from the post some landlord sums: Put in 20% deposit: Say 50k Borrow £250k Buy an average house - lets say £300k to keep sums easier Do the sums right and your tenants pay the mortgage, maintenance, insurances and agency fees. T'Internet reckons a landlord should see 5% profit... This 5% isn't 5% of what they p[ut in (50k) but 5% off what the tenants pay, lets say £100 a month. Awww, that isn't much to get a house paid for for free.. ...so lets fast forward 25 years when the mortgage is paid off, house price will have at least doubled at current rates. Lets go double. Landlord sells up, £50k has turned into £630k over 25 years (including the £100 a month). Ahhh, my bleeding heart.

It is a valid point, at the moment and while the trees are healthy just in case it takes longer than you think I'd make sure the house insurance covers it.

So you can cut the trees back to your boundary no problem - you are allowed to do that. Most land will be registered to someone - if it is not council land it could still belong to a developer and not transferred to anyone else yet? (depends how old the houses are). I assume you have had a look at the land register to see who owns the land? If it is a conservation area, is there someone who manages that? They should know who owns what, or is the land unmanaged?

Beginning to think that from the press reports that the last few years of his career have been a plan to leave a past behind that he doesn't want following and a defence if it does catch up. Running rampant in the British TV studios, the heat was getting to him when he was told to his face about being a predator, he up sticks and goes to the US... trickier to sue or prosecute someone in a different country, and away from a daily dose of him on TV his victims might just let bygones be bygones ... couple of films, but ran away from film making.. and now a following of 28 million was it? conspiracy theories galore, all believing now that the establishment is out to get him.

Is that the "P.C." brigade then?

There is a joke in there but pretty sure writing it down would ruin it.

Slight difference Mike, you were paying out to buy the complete business which I guess was a shared asset you and the business partner - sucks though that you being the good guy had to pay out to the bad guy. You were never accused of anything - so any payment you made wasn't to make allegations against you vanish. In the cases where the accused makes a payment and the threat of court action vanishes, the payment is the lesser of the 2 evils, the greater of the 2 is the victim having their day in court. The analogy here would be you taking your old business partner to court and them saying "here is the business, website et al and also £50k to make the court side of things go away". The greater of the 2 evils is only greater if you won't walk away from the court proceedings with an apology from the accuser.

That kind of emphasises a point I made earlier, those who are rich and famous are protected because of this attitude "they are only reporting this to go after their cash". The victims are often put off reporting what happened because of that attitude. Mentioned earlier that the courts should decide guilt but the victims should be able to report any crimes without fear or prejudice. Any guilty verdicts and then the victims should be able to chase for a payout. To me making a payout is almost an admission of guilt - why make a payment if there is nothing to defend yourself from? Noting that there was a report to the police about Brand (not from someone in the documentary) - shows that the program has shown other victims that they weren't the only ones. Of course, writing here as if he is guilty, he could be found to be innocent of specific charges in a court of law if it gets that far

Wow, what a lot of words from a simple question for a clarification about what you were referring to. Taking a lot of interest in my comments....

D'Oh, you posted a comment on an open forum, which I think needed clarification to aid the discussion. No clarification was coming, so I answered the question as asked. If you don't want a discussion following your comments on the open threads, wanting only the opinions of specified individuals then perhaps a private message is more appropriate. Noting that your preference to insult those that have opposing opinions on anything I'd perhaps give a warning that private messages to insult people shouldn't be looked on favourably so keep them nice eh? My question answered by your silence, so back to the discussion.

So that is a no then, you aren't going to answer what I asked. You are asking what we think to the timing of all of this and yet there is nothing going on in the background to suggest this documentary was released to coincide with anything. So I'll give my answer. the timing of this documentary is irrelevant to the discussion apart from TV schedules and advertising revenue..

So are you going to answer what I asked or just throw out insults? You were insinuating that the timing of this documentary and newspaper reports were convenient, so a nice and civil question to ask for clarification throws up an insult. Just to remind you, why is the timing of this significant? I have missed something along the way, so do enlighten us. For a mock outrage of a Downing street comment, I think the journalists contacted and asked Downing street for a comment, who cannot win either way perhaps, if the press officer answer "horrified" and so on some will say get on with the day job, if they answer "none of our business" then others will be saying they don't care about the people. I very much doubt that Sunak stuck out his podium on the front steps and said "I am horrified by this"... t was a journalist phoning and askign that provided that response

Might be as simple that the world of work has changed, flexible office working is normal now, a few days in the office, a few days at home. Before it was all in the office. Perhaps the assholes were always in the streets where you worked... but you never met them because your worlds never met? My road is quiet, not enough people to be arsy with, but when I am out and about the proportions of the good, the bad and the ugly are about the same as always.

Obviously you have read something going on in the background to suggest that the timing of this documentary is related to something else - I haven't read that yet... so what did we miss in the background they 'they' are trying to hide? ('they' generally refers to a government, the New World Order, Tibetan monks, Lizards or alien overlords of course, and not a TV station and news paper with a story to tell and advertising to sell in time for a nice Christmas bonus)

however in many cases of the past the victims always assumed that they were the only ones, something along the line of why would they believe me against this big famous personality. So they don't come forward - don't want to be singled out, don't want to be the trouble maker. The famous are often very charasmatic, it is what gets them there in the first place, sow the seeds of doubt in the victims mind and often they don't come forward. Of 'regular' victims of sexual assaults and rapes - only about 1/3 of rapes are reported and of them only about 1 or 2 percent result in a prosecution, something like that. With that statistic, and facing 'the establishmet' and a charasmatic abuser I am pretty sure many wouldn't realise that they re not the only victim, don't want to come forward and only when contacted by a journalist they realse that they are not the ony one and their story can make a difference. (based on what I have read in the past) just watching the show, clever editing perhaps and clips - 2 sides to every story - but.. it doesn't paint a good picture of him

I'd tend to agree with that too. Your dog, your responsibility. We take dogs and want them to live in a human world so we need to teach them how to do that - train them how to, which I think is the responsibility of the owners. Any problems then their owners should be accountable. A dogs natural instinct isn't to be a 4 legged human and if they revert to how they were bred, and attack then there is a good chance that the dog will also be killed - all because their human didn't take the care to teach them how to behave. When I am out and about I see many dogs on and off leads and at the moment would say it is 50-50 whether an off lead dog comes over to me to interfere with my day. A dog jumping on me for attention is playful to some, it is an attack to others. I'd also say that unless the dog has immediate voice recall then they should also be on a lead, particularly in city parks and other areas where children are likely to be playing. But back to the story, we are seeing a lot of young dogs (about 3 years old) that are not trained appropriately or socialised - the lock down dogs, I expect to see a few more reports of dog attacks in the next 3 or 4 years from these dogs.

I thought we'd left immigration behind for a bit, told you earlier still out for my bingo call - ticked off immigration ages ago. However you might be mistaken about more immigration, my focus has always been on a bit of humanity for the most desperate - those willing to risk their lives in a blow up boat crossing the busiest shipping lane in the world.. .because that option is safer than staying at home. These are the people demonised by good old Nigel Farage, man of the people multi-millionaire (with a pension larger than the average salary) and the Daily Mail simply because they make better photos than immigrants coming through Heathrow airport looking the same as you would coming back of a holiday. Perhaps you forget that what pushes asylum seekers (and eventually given refugee status) isn't the bright lights of London, it is often the muzzle flash from a police state. I feel I'd be repeating the same comments to the same deaf eyes, so leaving it there. Back to my first sentence, looking to move the conversation onwards from listening to another rant about asylum seekers - unless you have any constructive thoughts other than rants? I do live in hope. I might have missed the part where you offered a solution to small boats.

That's the one, so the article said that the Labour peers blocked a bill by 206 votes (I think that was the number I read) with 174 members, not all of them turned up to vote, how is that possible ?

Ahh, FFS I've done it again haven't I? Sorry.