Right at this moment the streets around my house stink of ash. An hour ago you could hardly breath outside due to the marvellous Battersea Arts Centre being ablaze. It's about half a mile from my house and the people all around the area are all close to tears as this place was in the hearts of all that grew up around here.
Fire can be such a devastating force. Actually this is currently happening in my country:
http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/03/06/patagonia-forest-fires-may-be-worst-in-argentinas-history (http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/03/06/patagonia-forest-fires-may-be-worst-in-argentinas-history)
So far 34.000 ha (about 84.000 acres) of ancient forests have been destroyed and the fire threatens Parque Nacional Los Alerces (https://www.google.com/search?q=parque+nacional+los+alerces&biw=1252&bih=561&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FloDVaf7E8vDggSNpYPICA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ)
They say it was started intentionally. Sadly I suspect the fight is ineffective and even indolent.
Maybe even reintroducing the fire to the property agents that started it?..
That looks like a spectacular building. How sad that the great hall was destroyed as it looks like it was pretty lovely from the Wikipedia photos. The Glasgow Institute of Fine Arts was recently devastated also, with the beautiful library by CR Mackintosh pretty much destroyed. I expect they'll salvage what they can and restore/rebuild what has been damaged beyond that.
There are too many sad and horrific story's in the Newspapers, just thought this was a nice one from my village.
Tsk.
Tsk.
Not selling it as a tourist destination, to be honest.
An intriguing prospect, as "freedom fighters" expect a reservation in a special balcony of heaven.
I'm pretty sure they blaspheme the faith, so they're probably already covered in terms of applicable sins. I hope that if they do get to that heaven, the virgins are mean, pushy American Jewesses who will give them poo for eternity.;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
If there is a hell, I expect there will be a special circle reserved for terrorists.
http://www.theonion.com/article/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule-222
http://www.theonion.com/article/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule-222
I think you have misunderstood. God & Church are completely separate things.
Nope.
God = something people (created to) believe in, so that they can convince themselves that all people will get their due later.
Church = something created by some people to control other people, so that the controllers will get "their due" now.
Granted that there is an overlap in practice, but the principles are quite separate.
Always glad to help.
I think the whole country could really do without the general election this week as none of the parties are electable as they stand. Perhaps a cross party coalition is the best way to go.Dont allow any MP to reenter Parliament, things will carry on as norm
I have warned you lot before about voting for politicians. Not a sensible thing to do.
No they didn't.
Politician = person standing for office.
They aren't all malicious or morons, but they are all dangerous.
Don't. Just don't.
So it is (partially) your fault.
Thank you, but I can't take that much credit.Agree, I did switch sides as I thought the whole Conservative manifest / U turms / failure to stand up and debate and the out right non answering of questions put to her and her party were a PR cockerel up
I have to be honest, regardless of my, or anyone else's opinion of Mr Corbyn, I haven't felt so at ease voting for a labour leader since John Smith.
As I understand what has been reported so far, no-one has said that it fails regulations: in fact it passes all of the UK and Europe's requirements.
On the other hand, it catches fire, so it patently obviously isn't fit for purpose.
Sort of bring s the whole regulatory framework into question for me: what is the point of having rules about what you can use, if the rules allow (and therefore encourage) you to use stuff that will kill people in numerous different ways when you use it?
Which is precisely why the regulation is so important. Business can't be trusted to "do the right thing", it can only be trusted to "do the most profitable thing". We know and accept this, but the "thing" that they do must be legal. If the law is wrong/ inadequate, accidents happen.So agree
It is not possible for the government/ council/ homeowner/ contractor/ fitter - or even inspector - to thoroughly test all materials they use, they rely on the legislative framework, and then often use the cheapest legal material. If that certified legal material is flammable/ poisonous it is hardly their fault.
There is huge difference between what one ethical person, or a small ethical company, can and will do and what a profit-driven large-to-huge corporation will do. For the purposes of this argument "cost-saving" and "profit-driven" amount to the same thing, and "council" and "corporation" are interchangeable. Common sense has no place in corporate affairs: minimum standards that meet legal requirements are driving the bus.
It may be possible for the end-user to test all the materials for use. I doubt it - I have worked for decades in testing and it is a specialised sport, not something to be undertaken lightly by someone whose expertise is elsewhere: I am reminded of the match tester: "yes, this one worked" tells you nothing about the next one: the testing has to be interwoven with the manufacture (particularly with complex components such as cladding: how can you tell that the glue used in the manufacture of all the sheets that you bought is identical in composition and quantity to the glue in the sample(s) that you tested?), and this is not something that can be done even by the ethical workman. ... but putting that all aside, and assuming that it is possible, it is not cost-effective: relying on the (supposed) fact that someone else has done the testing is the norm - and is encouraged so to be.
It may well be common sense that you shouldn't use something flammable to stop a fire, but if the legal framework says that a particular component is OK (even if it is cheap), then how would you know otherwise? The fact that you can set fire to something in your backyard doesn't mean that it is inappropriately flammable under normal usage conditions - even in extreme conditions. Obviously people did the work, and I daresay it is possible that some of them complained, and I would even go so far as to say that some people may have given up or lost their jobs as a result of this protest, but
1) in general terms doing inappropriate but legal work that keeps bread on the table trumps common sense and ethics just about every time, but
2) it is probable that no-one working on the tower block cladding really thought - at the time - that they were making the building unsafer. Hindsight is, of course, a wonderful thing, and I wouldn't be greatly surprised if all the people that worked on the job now come forward one at a time to tell the world how worried they were at the time, and how inappropriate the materials, the bosses, and most of all the robbing bastards in the council were: but hindsight is often coloured by experience, and has a modifying effect on one's memory.
If everyone in the council was following the rules, and the materials used were certified as appropriate, then the legal testing regime is at fault.
Of course if anyone used materials that were not certified as appropriate, then everyone involved in that usage should be hung out to dry.
There is huge difference between what.......
Last week I had to fire proof an RSJ I installed to comply with regulation. Have you ever tried setting light to an RSJ?
Before and after:
(https://preview.ibb.co/f7Tp4a/IMG_20170615_160203709_HDR.jpg)
(https://preview.ibb.co/cyamja/IMG_20170623_152549650_HDR.jpg)
that brings back memories of when I had my extension, failed at the first inspection for the RsJ not being fire proofed, yet didn't want to check if the extractor in the bathroom actually worked ???
such sadness in the world again.
to top it all Brucie has passed away :'(
Definitely not local but "Mugabe named as goodwill ambassador by WHO" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-41702662 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-41702662)
I honestly dont know what to say to this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43396008 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43396008)
Well S,Hawkins will now find out if there is a God or not ??
Some good news for me
In the next village there has opened a local brewery and over easter they have decided to open a pop up bar in their establishment. I od course had to show them my suppor so myself and wife trotted off to partake of a couple.
A very Nice oatmeal stout was drunk ;D ;D
So sad. Dinosaurs who were too trusting for their own good.
https://www.theonion.com/paleontologists-determine-dinosaurs-were-killed-by-some-1819577180 (https://www.theonion.com/paleontologists-determine-dinosaurs-were-killed-by-some-1819577180)
I'm about fed up with celebrities with no executive experience, and zero understanding of the nuances of governance running our country into the ground. West is a joke. I can't take him seriously. And maybe it's because I find the whole Kardashian universe exemplary of stuff that's seriously wrong with our culture, but I wish he'd just go back to being rich and annoying in other ways.
If his idiocy leaves us with another 4 years of Trump, we've been seriously considering emigrating and that would compel us to leave.
lockdown again :o
I sort of hate the way in this discussion, education is being treated as daycare, instead of, you know, the installation of knowledge into growing minds.
To leap in with an over-generalisation:
The issue, in these days of social media bully-boy gangs and "relative truth" is that "Americans" don't watch CNN: Republicans watch FOX, Democrats watch CNN. Democrats are appalled by the events shown on CNN, but Republicans aren't because they don't watch it (as they are convinced that they wouldn't believe it). Similarly for Fox (but the other way round, obvs.)
The BBC - along with al modern news media - suffers from the ailment that it thinks (because of the mostly unwarranted criticism of "bias") to be "impartial" it has to present both sides of an argument - even when one side is patently ridiculous. This leads to over-representation of minority and wacky positions.
It (with everyone else) also suffers from the cult of celebrity, where the "reporters" see themselves as the stars, and their interviewees as the supporting cast. They tend to the lazy point of view that the best way to the "heart of the issue" is provocative criticism: they seem to be relatively even-handed in their criticism, but that means that all parties are equally convinced that the criticism of their pet topics represents bias.
The BBC have resisted the glossy lipstick/ bouffant hair "celebrity presenter" approach to news rather better than the others (but not completely), and so are closer to "news" than the others.
In my opinion.
I know a lot of places have been criticising certain people's attitude to the lockdown and comparing one with another. Leicester, as we know, has been put back into lockdown due to their percentage of people testing positive accounting for 10% of the nation's count overall. I have heard it blamed on people their not distancing themselves from others and failures to follow the guidelines.The lockdown was approx 2 weeks too late, hospitals were full of "Minority" people 2 weeks after EID, first covid testing stations were put in Spinny Hill park which the local Asian community protested, Whilst videos of them playing cricket games and then the news of Sweatshops and refusal of closing them came into the national news.
To leap in with an over-generalisation:
The issue, in these days of social media bully-boy gangs and "relative truth" is that "Americans" don't watch CNN: Republicans watch FOX, Democrats watch CNN. Democrats are appalled by the events shown on CNN, but Republicans aren't because they don't watch it (as they are convinced that they wouldn't believe it). Similarly for Fox (but the other way round, obvs.)
The BBC - along with al modern news media - suffers from the ailment that it thinks (because of the mostly unwarranted criticism of "bias") to be "impartial" it has to present both sides of an argument - even when one side is patently ridiculous. This leads to over-representation of minority and wacky positions.
It (with everyone else) also suffers from the cult of celebrity, where the "reporters" see themselves as the stars, and their interviewees as the supporting cast. They tend to the lazy point of view that the best way to the "heart of the issue" is provocative criticism: they seem to be relatively even-handed in their criticism, but that means that all parties are equally convinced that the criticism of their pet topics represents bias.
The BBC have resisted the glossy lipstick/ bouffant hair "celebrity presenter" approach to news rather better than the others (but not completely), and so are closer to "news" than the others.
In my opinion.
I got fed up with it when I realised that it was pointless, and maybe counter productive. When you are preaching to the choir you aren't helping, and for a non-believer looking in it just confirms your prejudice.
... but as noted above, the alternative is to try to be even-handed, where even-handedness is ridiculous.
My recommendation would be to stop reporting things that are done purely for the sake of publicity: treat all "celebrities" the same, and confine them to the programmes to which they apply, not the news.
... the problem with that is the "news" channels are 24 hours, and have to have something to fill their time. It may be that the "news" organisations - and their sponsors/ advertisers - are "value-free" they don't care if what they report hurts or helps, they are in it for the bums on seats, so the more scandal they can find/ whip up the better for the ratings. I think that the BBC is slightly less prone to this, but only slightly less. (with the notable exception of the Kuenssbergs/ Pestons of this world, who would be right at home on a US 24-hour "news" show)
She's lovely. I'd forgotten who she was and then found this video of her.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/11/22/erica-hill-reacts-charlie-rose-allegations-sot-ebof.cnn (https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/11/22/erica-hill-reacts-charlie-rose-allegations-sot-ebof.cnn) BTW, not a day goes by that I want to madam slap Charlie Rose. What a moron. His show was just great and he screwed it up for all of us because he couldn't contain his own urges.
So, yesterday, Smokes' junior, at the tender age of 17, passed his driving test at his first attempt. It also completed phase one of my plan to get free lifts home from the pub.good idea
Congrats to both of us then.
In a quashquash?
... buy the boy a Jag!
Congrats.
In a quashquash?
... buy the boy a Jag!
Congrats.
Congrats to your son, smokes! (and to you!) Now he can start earning his keep running errands and such (we'll just fail to bring up all the free tech support he provides).
He seems very capable and I'm not surprised to hear he passed, but you must still be proud. It's frustrating to have his college plans derailed by this pandemic. Are they having any on campus instruction in the fall?
Had to find and buy daughter a new motor last night or I should say she found the car.
First year of driving and she somehow rolled hers into a countryside ditch last sunday, was so deep that the police went passed her twice and dint notice the car.
She managed to climb out through the passenger window (as facing upwards) and scramble trough the brambles and thorn bushed, her legs are a mess.
Thankfully some kind women droves and stopped for her when the police turned up and then a ambulance by chance.
Not a phone call you want at 8pm sunday night after a few shandies.
Luckily her back is stiff and neck and the cuts is only thing wrong. Recovery chap said she was lucky to be alive as the car entering the ditch caused a dam stopping water escaping and if she was unconscious and no knew she was there then end of story, he produced a photo of another recovery where a similar accident causing the death of a person he attended as car on roof and no one knew lad was in it and drowned
As she drives like Miss Daisy it came as a shock.
Dreading the insurance bill next year for her.
Congrats to the wee yin.
That was deliberate trolling.
I'm not going to bite. I'm not even going to notice. No siree bob.
Yep, I'm mullered.
That's one way to be popular with your son's friends. ;)
That's one way to be popular with your son's friends. ;)
And unpopular with the missus! ;D
Nobody told the new granddaughter that she was due in December, so she arrived last week (25 weeks):
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7g2h3ppbixmt7he/Baby.jpeg?raw=1)
I foresee months of pain and heartache for the new parents.
Nobody told the new granddaughter that she was due in December, so she arrived last week (25 weeks):firstly Congratulations on becoming a grandfather
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7g2h3ppbixmt7he/Baby.jpeg?raw=1)
I foresee months of pain and heartache for the new parents.
"Plan"? Likely story.
... some hip phrases the kids use todayBecause there is a bunch of pelvic-related slang today!
But won't you miss having him at home?
Yeah, long-distance tech support can suck.;D ;D ;D ;D
Wish him well and good fortune from me! (but jazz it up with some hip phrases the kids use today)
smokes, I hope he thrives there, and I fully expect that he will. But won't you miss having him at home?
Yeah, long-distance tech support can suck.
;D ;D ;D ;D
Drove through Leicester yesterday and thought about you mate.buggar, could have had a shandie
buggar, could have had a shandie