As a postal voter, Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
As a postal voter, Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are collected by the local District Council, not Kent County Council.
He then moves onto potholes, which indeed is a live issue, but it's nationally
live, not just in this county.
Now: some numbers. I enquired and it seems that the Kent County Council budget
is £1.6 billion. But half of that gets spent annually on Adult Social Care, which is, AIUI, a legal obligation on the County. Thus if more needs to be spent, this can only be done by raiding other budgets - such as Highways.
How we're all going to get out of this mess I don't know, but it won't be by electing Nige's lot, who it seems have managed to nominate three candidates in
a county division which has two seats. Smart, eh?
On 05/04/2025 21:33, Tim Streater wrote:
As a postal voter, Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to voteI think Nigel understands that his likely voters will not analyse things
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local candidate
might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin collections. Perhaps he >> doesn't understand that bins are collected by the local District Council, not
Kent County Council.
He then moves onto potholes, which indeed is a live issue, but it's nationally
live, not just in this county.
Now: some numbers. I enquired and it seems that the Kent County Council budget
is £1.6 billion. But half of that gets spent annually on Adult Social Care, >> which is, AIUI, a legal obligation on the County. Thus if more needs to be >> spent, this can only be done by raiding other budgets - such as Highways.
How we're all going to get out of this mess I don't know, but it won't be by >> electing Nige's lot, who it seems have managed to nominate three candidates in
a county division which has two seats. Smart, eh?
in the way you have.
Grudge & Grumble Politics is alive and well in the UK.
On 6 Apr 2025 at 01:35:26 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 05/04/2025 21:33, Tim Streater wrote:
As a postal voter, Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to voteI think Nigel understands that his likely voters will not analyse things
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local candidate >>> might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin collections. Perhaps he
doesn't understand that bins are collected by the local District Council, not
Kent County Council.
He then moves onto potholes, which indeed is a live issue, but it's nationally
live, not just in this county.
Now: some numbers. I enquired and it seems that the Kent County Council budget
is £1.6 billion. But half of that gets spent annually on Adult Social Care,
which is, AIUI, a legal obligation on the County. Thus if more needs to be >>> spent, this can only be done by raiding other budgets - such as Highways. >>>
How we're all going to get out of this mess I don't know, but it won't be by
electing Nige's lot, who it seems have managed to nominate three candidates in
a county division which has two seats. Smart, eh?
in the way you have.
Grudge & Grumble Politics is alive and well in the UK.
Unfortunately you are 100% right. I can only advise that people, generally, should vote for their incumbent (unless known to be a yo-yo) or unless the council is run by a coalition, in which case replacing with a single party will typically be better.
Unfortunately you are 100% right. I can only advise that people, generally, should vote for their incumbent (unless known to be a yo-yo) or unless the council is run by a coalition, in which case replacing with a single party will typically be better.
On 06/04/2025 10:18, Tim Streater wrote:
Unfortunately you are 100% right. I can only advise that people, generally, >> should vote for their incumbent (unless known to be a yo-yo) or unless the >> council is run by a coalition, in which case replacing with a single party >> will typically be better.
Well, our local council is Lib-dem. They are paying all their staff 5
days for 4 days work. Apparently it helps staff retention.
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides Covid.
(I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to contain the list)
On 06/04/2025 10:18, Tim Streater wrote:
Unfortunately you are 100% right. I can only advise that people,
generally,
should vote for their incumbent (unless known to be a yo-yo) or unless
the
council is run by a coalition, in which case replacing with a single
party
will typically be better.
Well, our local council is Lib-dem. They are paying all their staff 5
days for 4 days work. Apparently it helps staff retention.
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
Labour seem to be messing up too - as historically they tend to.
Reform have no record of messing things up, which is a point in their
favour. Of course they have no record at all - but I don't _know_ they
are idiots...
I Might do what I did last time. Leave the paper blank.
(I won't do what someone did I heard in a report - drew a cock-and-balls against one of the candidates' name. Which while clearly not intended to
be a vote for that candidate was a mark against him...)
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
In what way?
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides
Covid. (I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to
contain the list)
See I would dispute this over Covid. There was a big panic on to get respirators and PPE. So some poor decisions were taken about who to award
the contracts to. Of course that's never happened before or since.
History students will remember that brand new kit for the forces
continued to be delivered after the end of both WW1 and WW2, because
there were contracts.
I seem to recall some brand new flying boats (Sunderlands or something, anti-submarine) that were delivered in Northern Ireland, and promptly
moved out to sea and sunk. Never flown. Because they were no longer
needed.
On 13/04/2025 21:58, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 06/04/2025 10:18, Tim Streater wrote:
Unfortunately you are 100% right. I can only advise that people, >>>generally,
should vote for their incumbent (unless known to be a yo-yo) or unless >>>the
council is run by a coalition, in which case replacing with a single >>>party
will typically be better.
Well, our local council is Lib-dem. They are paying all their staff 5
days for 4 days work. Apparently it helps staff retention.
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides Covid.
(I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to contain the >list)
Labour seem to be messing up too - as historically they tend to.
Certainly far from brilliant, but - given the current batshit crazy >international situation - I am unsure what a realistic success would look >like.
In article <m6fkhoFpfndU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
In what way?
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides
Covid. (I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to
contain the list)
See I would dispute this over Covid. There was a big panic on to get
respirators and PPE. So some poor decisions were taken about who to award
the contracts to. Of course that's never happened before or since.
History students will remember that brand new kit for the forces
continued to be delivered after the end of both WW1 and WW2, because
there were contracts.
On the other hand, one major manufacturer of aircraft (Tommy Sopwith) at
the end of WW1 went bust becasue the Air Ministry refused to pay for the planes made for them.
I seem to recall some brand new flying boats (Sunderlands or something,
anti-submarine) that were delivered in Northern Ireland, and promptly
moved out to sea and sunk. Never flown. Because they were no longer
needed.
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:15:02, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <m6fkhoFpfndU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
<tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
In what way?
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides
Covid. (I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to
contain the list)
See I would dispute this over Covid. There was a big panic on to get
respirators and PPE. So some poor decisions were taken about who to
award the contracts to. Of course that's never happened before or
since.
History students will remember that brand new kit for the forces
continued to be delivered after the end of both WW1 and WW2, because
there were contracts.
On the other hand, one major manufacturer of aircraft (Tommy Sopwith)
at the end of WW1 went bust becasue the Air Ministry refused to pay for
the planes made for them.
I seem to recall some brand new flying boats (Sunderlands or
something, anti-submarine) that were delivered in Northern Ireland,
and promptly moved out to sea and sunk. Never flown. Because they were
no longer needed.
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
In what way?
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides Covid.
(I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to contain the
list)
See I would dispute this over Covid. There was a big panic on to get respirators and PPE. So some poor decisions were taken about who to award the contracts to. Of course that's never happened before or since.
Snip
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:15:02, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <m6fkhoFpfndU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
In what way?
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides
Covid. (I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to
contain the list)
See I would dispute this over Covid. There was a big panic on to get
respirators and PPE. So some poor decisions were taken about who to award >> the contracts to. Of course that's never happened before or since.
History students will remember that brand new kit for the forces
continued to be delivered after the end of both WW1 and WW2, because
there were contracts.
On the other hand, one major manufacturer of aircraft (Tommy Sopwith) at the end of WW1 went bust becasue the Air Ministry refused to pay for the planes made for them.
I seem to recall some brand new flying boats (Sunderlands or something,
anti-submarine) that were delivered in Northern Ireland, and promptly
moved out to sea and sunk. Never flown. Because they were no longer
needed.
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
On 18/04/2025 19:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
In what way?
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides Covid. >>> (I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to contain the >>> list)
See I would dispute this over Covid. There was a big panic on to get
respirators and PPE. So some poor decisions were taken about who to award the
contracts to. Of course that's never happened before or since.
In addition they waited too long to close the borders.
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along with some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play. Long thread here: <https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest interest in aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally got there eight
years ago, and spent over six hours looking around. Get on the Lancaster
if you have a chance.
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
In what way?
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides Covid.
(I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to contain the
list)
See I would dispute this over Covid. There was a big panic on to get respirators and PPE. So some poor decisions were taken about who to award the contracts to. Of course that's never happened before or since.
History students will remember that brand new kit for the forces continued to be delivered after the end of both WW1 and WW2, because there were contracts. I seem to recall some brand new flying boats (Sunderlands or something, anti-submarine) that were delivered in Northern Ireland, and promptly moved out to sea and sunk. Never flown. Because they were no longer needed.
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along with
some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play. Long thread
here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest interest in
aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally got there eight
years ago, and spent over six hours looking around. Get on the
Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort of
optional under carriage)?
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
In what way?
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides Covid.
(I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to contain the
list)
See I would dispute this over Covid. There was a big panic on to get respirators and PPE. So some poor decisions were taken about who to award the contracts to. Of course that's never happened before or since.
On 18/04/2025 19:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
In what way?
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides Covid. >>> (I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to contain the >>> list)
See I would dispute this over Covid. There was a big panic on to get
respirators and PPE. So some poor decisions were taken about who to award the
contracts to. Of course that's never happened before or since.
"poor decisions" must be the very kindest way imaginable to describe
what was being done in handing contracts to friends and patrons with
zero track record in such work.
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along with some
other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play. Long thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest interest in
aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally got there eight
years ago, and spent over six hours looking around. Get on the Lancaster
if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
On 20/04/2025 01:41, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:They were not built (or maintained) on the water, so being able to move
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along with
some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play. Long
thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest interest
in aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally got there
eight years ago, and spent over six hours looking around. Get on the
Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort of
optional under carriage)?
them onto dry land was always essential.
(I seem to recall the use of slipways to get them into & out of the water.)
On 20 Apr 2025 at 01:41:39 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along with some >>> other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play. Long thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest interest in
aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally got there eight
years ago, and spent over six hours looking around. Get on the Lancaster >>> if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Not unless they built a pond somewhere nearby.
We used to live about 10 miles from Duxford, and one summer's day I was outside and started to notice small planes gathering overhead. It was the holding area for the flypast, and there were eventually more than 20 Spits and
assorted other planes. Quite a sight, then, and having all jockeyed into position, they zoomed off for the flypast at Duxford.
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along with
some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play. Long thread
here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest interest in
aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally got there eight
years ago, and spent over six hours looking around. Get on the
Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort of
optional under carriage)?
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:15:02, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <m6fkhoFpfndU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
<tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
In what way?
To be fair, they 'messed up' a whole load of other things besides
Covid. (I would list them in this margin, but it's far too small to
contain the list)
See I would dispute this over Covid. There was a big panic on to get
respirators and PPE. So some poor decisions were taken about who to award >>> the contracts to. Of course that's never happened before or since.
History students will remember that brand new kit for the forces
continued to be delivered after the end of both WW1 and WW2, because
there were contracts.
On the other hand, one major manufacturer of aircraft (Tommy Sopwith) at
the end of WW1 went bust becasue the Air Ministry refused to pay for the
planes made for them.
I seem to recall some brand new flying boats (Sunderlands or something,
anti-submarine) that were delivered in Northern Ireland, and promptly
moved out to sea and sunk. Never flown. Because they were no longer
needed.
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
On 20/04/2025 07:47, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 01:41:39 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along
with some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play.
Long thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest
interest in aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally
got there eight years ago, and spent over six hours looking
around. Get on the Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Not unless they built a pond somewhere nearby.
We used to live about 10 miles from Duxford, and one summer's day II live about 20 miles away and its a regular test run for the show
was outside and started to notice small planes gathering overhead.
It was the holding area for the flypast, and there were eventually
more than 20 Spits and assorted other planes. Quite a sight, then,
and having all jockeyed into position, they zoomed off for the
flypast at Duxford.
planes as there is open country suitable for crash landings all
around. Seen the lot really.
Duxford itself is too damned big and crowded on airshow days. But its
great for a mid week walk-around
for close up and personal the Shuttleworth collection at Old Warden
is a far more enjoyable show day out .
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 10:09:20 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
for close up and personal the Shuttleworth collection at Old Warden
is a far more enjoyable show day out .
I agree wholeheartedly about The Shuttleworth Collection's Summer
Airshow. I was there last July, and it was a great afternoon/evening
out.
If you go, take a picnic, and make sure your camera's battery is fully charged.
On 20/04/2025 14:42, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 10:09:20 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
for close up and personal the Shuttleworth collection at Old Warden
is a far more enjoyable show day out .
I agree wholeheartedly about The Shuttleworth Collection's Summer
Airshow. I was there last July, and it was a great afternoon/evening
out.
If you go, take a picnic, and make sure your camera's battery is
fully charged.
I got simply first rate fish and chips off a van...
On 20/04/2025 01:41, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:They were not built (or maintained) on the water, so being able to move
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along with
some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play. Long
thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest interest
in aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally got there
eight years ago, and spent over six hours looking around. Get on the
Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort of
optional under carriage)?
them onto dry land was always essential.
(I seem to recall the use of slipways to get them into & out of the water.)
On 20 Apr 2025 at 01:41:39 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along with some >>> other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play. Long thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest interest in
aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally got there eight
years ago, and spent over six hours looking around. Get on the Lancaster >>> if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Not unless they built a pond somewhere nearby.
They were not built (or maintained) on the water, so being able to move
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort of
optional under carriage)?
them onto dry land was always essential.
(I seem to recall the use of slipways to get them into & out of the water.)
On 19/04/2025 20:47, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:41, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:They were not built (or maintained) on the water, so being able to
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along with
some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play. Long
thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest interest
in aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally got there
eight years ago, and spent over six hours looking around. Get on the
Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort of
optional under carriage)?
move them onto dry land was always essential.
(I seem to recall the use of slipways to get them into & out of the
water.)
Thanks.
I know the location where they were built (now transformed into housing,
of course) and that makes sense, given the lie of that land.
On 20/04/2025 17:04, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 20:47, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:41, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:They were not built (or maintained) on the water, so being able to
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along
with some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play.
Long thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest
interest in aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally
got there eight years ago, and spent over six hours looking
around. Get on the Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort
of optional under carriage)?
move them onto dry land was always essential.
(I seem to recall the use of slipways to get them into & out of
the water.)
Thanks.
I know the location where they were built (now transformed intoA very civilised aircraft.
housing, of course) and that makes sense, given the lie of that
land.
As the wiki article says:
"The interior of the Sunderland's fuselage contained two individual
decks; the lower deck contained a total of six bunks, along with a
galley outfitted with a twin kerosene pressure stove, a yacht-style
porcelain flush toilet, an anchoring winch, and a small machine shop
for performing inflight repairs."
Later another survivor was based at Calshot but she wasn’t licenced for passengers , it left for the USA in 1993 as its owner could non longer
afford it.
<https://youtu.be/Wo3UgbP-6Lo?feature=shared>
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 19:24:21 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 17:04, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 20:47, Sam Plusnet wrote:A very civilised aircraft.
On 20/04/2025 01:41, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:They were not built (or maintained) on the water, so being able to
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along
with some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play.
Long thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest
interest in aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally
got there eight years ago, and spent over six hours looking
around. Get on the Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort
of optional under carriage)?
move them onto dry land was always essential.
(I seem to recall the use of slipways to get them into & out of
the water.)
Thanks.
I know the location where they were built (now transformed into
housing, of course) and that makes sense, given the lie of that
land.
As the wiki article says:
"The interior of the Sunderland's fuselage contained two individual
decks; the lower deck contained a total of six bunks, along with a
galley outfitted with a twin kerosene pressure stove, a yacht-style
porcelain flush toilet, an anchoring winch, and a small machine shop
for performing inflight repairs."
I wonder if the yacht-style flush toilet copied the sailing world's
habit of discharging the waste out to the outside world. Ok if there
are no ships directly below, but if there are, not so good.
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 19:24:21 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 17:04, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 20:47, Sam Plusnet wrote:A very civilised aircraft.
On 20/04/2025 01:41, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:They were not built (or maintained) on the water, so being able
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along
with some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play.
Long thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest
interest in aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally
got there eight years ago, and spent over six hours looking
around. Get on the Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort
of optional under carriage)?
to move them onto dry land was always essential.
(I seem to recall the use of slipways to get them into & out of
the water.)
Thanks.
I know the location where they were built (now transformed into
housing, of course) and that makes sense, given the lie of that
land.
As the wiki article says:
"The interior of the Sunderland's fuselage contained two
individual decks; the lower deck contained a total of six bunks,
along with a galley outfitted with a twin kerosene pressure stove,
a yacht-style porcelain flush toilet, an anchoring winch, and a
small machine shop for performing inflight repairs."
I wonder if the yacht-style flush toilet copied the sailing world's
habit of discharging the waste out to the outside world. Ok if there
are no ships directly below, but if there are, not so good.
As one of their prime tasks when in active service was to drop bombs
or depth charges on ships and Submarines the odd turd was
comparatively benign.
GH
.
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 19:24:21 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 17:04, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 20:47, Sam Plusnet wrote:A very civilised aircraft.
On 20/04/2025 01:41, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:They were not built (or maintained) on the water, so being able to
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along
with some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of play.
Long thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest
interest in aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I finally
got there eight years ago, and spent over six hours looking
around. Get on the Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort
of optional under carriage)?
move them onto dry land was always essential.
(I seem to recall the use of slipways to get them into & out of
the water.)
Thanks.
I know the location where they were built (now transformed into
housing, of course) and that makes sense, given the lie of that
land.
As the wiki article says:
"The interior of the Sunderland's fuselage contained two individual
decks; the lower deck contained a total of six bunks, along with a
galley outfitted with a twin kerosene pressure stove, a yacht-style
porcelain flush toilet, an anchoring winch, and a small machine shop
for performing inflight repairs."
I wonder if the yacht-style flush toilet copied the sailing world's
habit of discharging the waste out to the outside world. Ok if there
are no ships directly below, but if there are, not so good.
As one of their prime tasks when in active service was to drop bombs or
depth charges on ships and Submarines the odd turd was comparatively
benign.
On 21/04/2025 21:13, Marland wrote:
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 19:24:21 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 17:04, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 20:47, Sam Plusnet wrote:A very civilised aircraft.
On 20/04/2025 01:41, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 03:07, Jeff Layman wrote:They were not built (or maintained) on the water, so being able
On 19/04/2025 07:11, Bob Martin wrote:
Pitty, I never saw a Sunderland.
There's one at Duxford.
It's being moved outside - or perhaps already has been - along >>>>>>> with some other exhibits. Not sure of the latest state of
play. Long thread here:
<https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=90949>
Duxford is a fantastic place for anyone with the slightest
interest in aircraft, particularly military aircraft. I
finally got there eight years ago, and spent over six hours
looking around. Get on the Lancaster if you have a chance.
Is the Sunderland at Duxford afloat?
Or has it been adapted to stand unaided (perhaps with some sort
of optional under carriage)?
to move them onto dry land was always essential.
(I seem to recall the use of slipways to get them into & out of
the water.)
Thanks.
I know the location where they were built (now transformed into
housing, of course) and that makes sense, given the lie of that
land.
As the wiki article says:
"The interior of the Sunderland's fuselage contained two
individual decks; the lower deck contained a total of six bunks,
along with a galley outfitted with a twin kerosene pressure
stove, a yacht-style porcelain flush toilet, an anchoring winch,
and a small machine shop for performing inflight repairs."
I wonder if the yacht-style flush toilet copied the sailing world's
habit of discharging the waste out to the outside world. Ok if
there are no ships directly below, but if there are, not so good.
As one of their prime tasks when in active service was to drop
bombs or depth charges on ships and Submarines the odd turd was comparatively benign.
But the opportunity to try to drop the lot onto a navy ship would be
the high point of a 14 hour-long boring patrol.
Points for a near miss, but a drink from everyone in the crew for a successful bomb run.
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet"<not@home.com> wrote:
In what way?The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
On 18/04/2025 19:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet"<not@home.com> wrote:
In what way?The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
Well, to take an example: Look at lockdown.
There was no reason to shut schools. Covid isn't really dangerous to schoolkids. It's not dangerous to most adults. Providing some way to
shield granny was the correct approach, not shutting the entire economy
down.
Including NHS cancer care. There's a spike in cancer cases now because
of all the people who couldn't get treatment.
To be fair to the Tories I have no faith that the other parties would
have done any better. Population dynamics just happens to be something I studied rather thoroughly at university. Every time someone mentions
this I can remember the time the BBC did an article on the evening news,
and I found myself sitting bolt upright and saying aloud "THAT'S NOT
WHAT R MEANS" when they explained something to the entire nation. Wrongly.
Andy
On 18/04/2025 19:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet"<not@home.com> wrote:
In what way?The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
Well, to take an example: Look at lockdown.
There was no reason to shut schools. Covid isn't really dangerous to >schoolkids. It's not dangerous to most adults. Providing some way to
shield granny was the correct approach, not shutting the entire economy
down.
Including NHS cancer care. There's a spike in cancer cases now because of
all the people who couldn't get treatment.
To be fair to the Tories I have no faith that the other parties would have >done any better. Population dynamics just happens to be something I
studied rather thoroughly at university. Every time someone mentions this
I can remember the time the BBC did an article on the evening news, and I >found myself sitting bolt upright and saying aloud "THAT'S NOT WHAT R
MEANS" when they explained something to the entire nation. Wrongly.
Andy
On 18/04/2025 19:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:23:29 BST, "Sam Plusnet"<not@home.com> wrote:
In what way?The Tories were tested with COVID. And messed up.
Well, to take an example: Look at lockdown.
There was no reason to shut schools. Covid isn't really dangerous to schoolkids. It's not dangerous to most adults. Providing some way to
shield granny was the correct approach, not shutting the entire economy
down.
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:44:51 +1000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 06/04/2025 10:18, Tim Streater wrote:
On 6 Apr 2025 at 01:35:26 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 05/04/2025 21:33, Tim Streater wrote:Unfortunately you are 100% right. I can only advise that people,
As a postal voter, Our Nige seems to decided to send me a genericI think Nigel understands that his likely voters will not analyse
plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local
candidate
might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin collections.
Perhaps he
doesn't understand that bins are collected by the local District
Council, not
Kent County Council.
He then moves onto potholes, which indeed is a live issue, but it's
nationally
live, not just in this county.
Now: some numbers. I enquired and it seems that the Kent County
Council budget
is £1.6 billion. But half of that gets spent annually on Adult
Social Care,
which is, AIUI, a legal obligation on the County. Thus if more
needs to be
spent, this can only be done by raiding other budgets - such as
Highways.
How we're all going to get out of this mess I don't know, but it
won't be by
electing Nige's lot, who it seems have managed to nominate three
candidates in
a county division which has two seats. Smart, eh?
things
in the way you have.
Grudge & Grumble Politics is alive and well in the UK.
generally,
should vote for their incumbent (unless known to be a yo-yo) or
unless the
council is run by a coalition, in which case replacing with a single
party
will typically be better.
Hmm, maybe you're right, but Reform is basically a pressure group to
reduce immigration. The more people vote who for them, the (old) major
parties will have to include some immigration quota system in their
manifesto.
It's a good idea to pre-warn the (old) major parties of impending doom
of the next General Election results unless they kowtow and embrace
Reform's USP.
That last is a complete fantasy
And it remains to be seen if Nige's party will implode
completely just like all the previous ones have.
It's all very well saying that in hindsight, at the time we just didn't
know so the Conservatives played it safe to their credit.
On 30/04/2025 18:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
They had no idea what they were doing, and guessed. It had enormous
It's all very well saying that in hindsight, at the time we just didn't >>know so the Conservatives played it safe to their credit.
economic cost and the NHS still hasn't recovered.
As I said though I have no faith that any of the other parties would have >done any better. They are all for obvious reasons full of people who can
make great speeches, rather than people who have technical knowledge.
Andy
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are collected by the local District Council, not Kent County Council.
Tim Streater wrote:
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
I kept all electioneering flyers by the front door, Tory sent four,
Reform one (hand written envelope IIRC) everyone else zero.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local
candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin
collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are collected
by the local District Council, not Kent County Council.
Here the city council is proposing to take-over parts of the
surrounding district and borough councils, increasing the size of the
city, probably transferring roles from the county council.
My district council doesn't want to get sucked-in to the larger city,
I doubt many of the residents do either, our bins get emptied pretty reliably, yeah we get potholes, but they're noticeably worse as you
cross the city limits.
On 30/04/2025 18:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
They had no idea what they were doing, and guessed. It had enormous
It's all very well saying that in hindsight, at the time we just
didn't know so the Conservatives played it safe to their credit.
economic cost and the NHS still hasn't recovered.
As I said though I have no faith that any of the other parties would
have done any better. They are all for obvious reasons full of people
who can make great speeches, rather than people who have technical
knowledge.
Andy
On Sun, 4 May 2025 10:15:37 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
I kept all electioneering flyers by the front door, Tory sent four,
Reform one (hand written envelope IIRC) everyone else zero.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local
candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin
collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are collected
by the local District Council, not Kent County Council.
Here the city council is proposing to take-over parts of the
surrounding district and borough councils, increasing the size of the
city, probably transferring roles from the county council.
My district council doesn't want to get sucked-in to the larger city,
I doubt many of the residents do either, our bins get emptied pretty
reliably, yeah we get potholes, but they're noticeably worse as you
cross the city limits.
Here, several District Councils are to be conglomerated into one. And
there will be a new Mayor.
I don't remember any discussion about this, nor even one of those 'Consultations' that always ignore what the people want, and impose the
New Plan irregardless. Where does the money for a new Mayor come from?
This just came straight out of Rayner's head, fully formed and ready to
go. Meanwhile, our normal scheduled set of council elections have been postponed. How convenient, we can't throw any Labour councillors out
for several years now. Whether or not it is to prevent Reform gaining
ground, it will have that effect. I say that not as a Reform voter.
We should have allowed more time for anti-vaxxers to catch it and die.
On 04/05/2025 12:34, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2025 10:15:37 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
I kept all electioneering flyers by the front door, Tory sent four,
Reform one (hand written envelope IIRC) everyone else zero.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local
candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin
collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are collected
by the local District Council, not Kent County Council.
Here the city council is proposing to take-over parts of the
surrounding district and borough councils, increasing the size of
the city, probably transferring roles from the county council.
My district council doesn't want to get sucked-in to the larger
city, I doubt many of the residents do either, our bins get
emptied pretty reliably, yeah we get potholes, but they're
noticeably worse as you cross the city limits.
Here, several District Councils are to be conglomerated into one.
And there will be a new Mayor.
I don't remember any discussion about this, nor even one of those 'Consultations' that always ignore what the people want, and impose
the New Plan irregardless. Where does the money for a new Mayor
come from? This just came straight out of Rayner's head, fully
formed and ready to go. Meanwhile, our normal scheduled set of
council elections have been postponed. How convenient, we can't
throw any Labour councillors out for several years now. Whether or
not it is to prevent Reform gaining ground, it will have that
effect. I say that not as a Reform voter.
I don't know the details in your area[1], obviously, but plans to
amalgamate local authorities tend to be one of those processes which
take years to come to fruition.
Are you quite sure this sprang from the current Westmister
government? That sort of timescale sounds pretty much impossible.
[1] Here, two adjacent LAs now 'share' a chief executive. There has
been much discussion and speculation about the two LAs actually
merging for more than the last decade, but it hasn't happened yet nor
does it seem probable.
On 04/05/2025 12:34, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2025 10:15:37 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
I kept all electioneering flyers by the front door, Tory sent four,
Reform one (hand written envelope IIRC) everyone else zero.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local
candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin
collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are collected
by the local District Council, not Kent County Council.
Here the city council is proposing to take-over parts of the
surrounding district and borough councils, increasing the size of the
city, probably transferring roles from the county council.
My district council doesn't want to get sucked-in to the larger city,
I doubt many of the residents do either, our bins get emptied pretty
reliably, yeah we get potholes, but they're noticeably worse as you
cross the city limits.
Here, several District Councils are to be conglomerated into one. And
there will be a new Mayor.
I don't remember any discussion about this, nor even one of those
'Consultations' that always ignore what the people want, and impose the
New Plan irregardless. Where does the money for a new Mayor come from?
This just came straight out of Rayner's head, fully formed and ready to
go. Meanwhile, our normal scheduled set of council elections have been
postponed. How convenient, we can't throw any Labour councillors out
for several years now. Whether or not it is to prevent Reform gaining
ground, it will have that effect. I say that not as a Reform voter.
I don't know the details in your area[1], obviously, but plans to
amalgamate local authorities tend to be one of those processes which
take years to come to fruition.
Are you quite sure this sprang from the current Westmister government?
That sort of timescale sounds pretty much impossible.
[1] Here, two adjacent LAs now 'share' a chief executive. There has
been much discussion and speculation about the two LAs actually merging
for more than the last decade, but it hasn't happened yet nor does it
seem probable.
This government will replace all local authorities with unitaries (unless they
are already one, of course, ha ha). That's the plan and is why not everywhere had local elections this year.
Tim Streater wrote:
This government will replace all local authorities with unitaries (unless they
are already one, of course, ha ha). That's the plan and is why not everywhere
had local elections this year.
The odd thing here, is that the city council doesn't want to swallow
*all* of the district councils within the county. They say they need to increase the radius of the city (widening its tax base) because most
other cities did that back in the 70s.
On 4 May 2025 at 19:15:02 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2025 12:34, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2025 10:15:37 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
I kept all electioneering flyers by the front door, Tory sent
four, Reform one (hand written envelope IIRC) everyone else zero.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local
candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin
collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are
collected by the local District Council, not Kent County
Council.
Here the city council is proposing to take-over parts of the
surrounding district and borough councils, increasing the size of
the city, probably transferring roles from the county council.
My district council doesn't want to get sucked-in to the larger
city, I doubt many of the residents do either, our bins get
emptied pretty reliably, yeah we get potholes, but they're
noticeably worse as you cross the city limits.
Here, several District Councils are to be conglomerated into one.
And there will be a new Mayor.
I don't remember any discussion about this, nor even one of those
'Consultations' that always ignore what the people want, and
impose the New Plan irregardless. Where does the money for a new
Mayor come from? This just came straight out of Rayner's head,
fully formed and ready to go. Meanwhile, our normal scheduled set
of council elections have been postponed. How convenient, we can't
throw any Labour councillors out for several years now. Whether or
not it is to prevent Reform gaining ground, it will have that
effect. I say that not as a Reform voter.
I don't know the details in your area[1], obviously, but plans to amalgamate local authorities tend to be one of those processes which
take years to come to fruition.
Are you quite sure this sprang from the current Westmister
government? That sort of timescale sounds pretty much impossible.
[1] Here, two adjacent LAs now 'share' a chief executive. There has
been much discussion and speculation about the two LAs actually
merging for more than the last decade, but it hasn't happened yet
nor does it seem probable.
This government will replace all local authorities with unitaries
(unless they are already one, of course, ha ha). That's the plan and
is why not everywhere had local elections this year. Have you not
been paying attention? This is actually a long-overdue reform. Only
people interested in politics know who empties the bins, everyone
else just assumes that "the council" does everything, they have no
clue whether any particular function is carried out by the County or
the local District Council.
Andy Burns wrote:An initial report has been submitted, supposedly jointly by the city/county/district councils, showing one proposal by each of the
The odd thing here, is that the city council doesn't want to swallow
*all* of the district councils within the county. They say they need to
increase the radius of the city (widening its tax base) because most
other cities did that back in the 70s.
How much consultation there'll be, I don't know. Again, my impression is that the Gumment will simply decide on the new boundaries and that will be that.
On Sun, 4 May 2025 19:15:02 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2025 12:34, Davey wrote:In fact, it's more the Couty Councils, but the basic principle is the
On Sun, 4 May 2025 10:15:37 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
I kept all electioneering flyers by the front door, Tory sent four,
Reform one (hand written envelope IIRC) everyone else zero.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local
candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin
collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are collected
by the local District Council, not Kent County Council.
Here the city council is proposing to take-over parts of the
surrounding district and borough councils, increasing the size of
the city, probably transferring roles from the county council.
My district council doesn't want to get sucked-in to the larger
city, I doubt many of the residents do either, our bins get
emptied pretty reliably, yeah we get potholes, but they're
noticeably worse as you cross the city limits.
Here, several District Councils are to be conglomerated into one.
And there will be a new Mayor.
I don't remember any discussion about this, nor even one of those
'Consultations' that always ignore what the people want, and impose
the New Plan irregardless. Where does the money for a new Mayor
come from? This just came straight out of Rayner's head, fully
formed and ready to go. Meanwhile, our normal scheduled set of
council elections have been postponed. How convenient, we can't
throw any Labour councillors out for several years now. Whether or
not it is to prevent Reform gaining ground, it will have that
effect. I say that not as a Reform voter.
I don't know the details in your area[1], obviously, but plans to
amalgamate local authorities tend to be one of those processes which
take years to come to fruition.
Are you quite sure this sprang from the current Westmister
government? That sort of timescale sounds pretty much impossible.
[1] Here, two adjacent LAs now 'share' a chief executive. There has
been much discussion and speculation about the two LAs actually
merging for more than the last decade, but it hasn't happened yet nor
does it seem probable.
same.n
https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/council-news/suffolk-on-the-fast-track-towards-complete-council-restructuring-and-devolution
No local elections here. (Nor anything other than a unitary authority for the last 30 years.)
On 4 May 2025 at 19:15:02 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2025 12:34, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2025 10:15:37 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
I kept all electioneering flyers by the front door, Tory sent four,
Reform one (hand written envelope IIRC) everyone else zero.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local
candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin
collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are collected
by the local District Council, not Kent County Council.
Here the city council is proposing to take-over parts of the
surrounding district and borough councils, increasing the size of the
city, probably transferring roles from the county council.
My district council doesn't want to get sucked-in to the larger city,
I doubt many of the residents do either, our bins get emptied pretty
reliably, yeah we get potholes, but they're noticeably worse as you
cross the city limits.
Here, several District Councils are to be conglomerated into one. And
there will be a new Mayor.
I don't remember any discussion about this, nor even one of those
'Consultations' that always ignore what the people want, and impose the
New Plan irregardless. Where does the money for a new Mayor come from?
This just came straight out of Rayner's head, fully formed and ready to
go. Meanwhile, our normal scheduled set of council elections have been
postponed. How convenient, we can't throw any Labour councillors out
for several years now. Whether or not it is to prevent Reform gaining
ground, it will have that effect. I say that not as a Reform voter.
I don't know the details in your area[1], obviously, but plans to
amalgamate local authorities tend to be one of those processes which
take years to come to fruition.
Are you quite sure this sprang from the current Westmister government?
That sort of timescale sounds pretty much impossible.
[1] Here, two adjacent LAs now 'share' a chief executive. There has
been much discussion and speculation about the two LAs actually merging
for more than the last decade, but it hasn't happened yet nor does it
seem probable.
This government will replace all local authorities with unitaries (unless they
are already one, of course, ha ha). That's the plan and is why not everywhere had local elections this year. Have you not been paying attention?
actually a long-overdue reform. Only people interested in politics know who empties the bins, everyone else just assumes that "the council" does everything, they have no clue whether any particular function is carried out by the County or the local District Council.
On 04/05/2025 20:18, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2025 19:15:02 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2025 12:34, Davey wrote:In fact, it's more the Couty Councils, but the basic principle is the same.n
On Sun, 4 May 2025 10:15:37 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
I kept all electioneering flyers by the front door, Tory sent four,
Reform one (hand written envelope IIRC) everyone else zero.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local
candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin
collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are collected >>>>> by the local District Council, not Kent County Council.
Here the city council is proposing to take-over parts of the
surrounding district and borough councils, increasing the size of
the city, probably transferring roles from the county council.
My district council doesn't want to get sucked-in to the larger
city, I doubt many of the residents do either, our bins get
emptied pretty reliably, yeah we get potholes, but they're
noticeably worse as you cross the city limits.
Here, several District Councils are to be conglomerated into one.
And there will be a new Mayor.
I don't remember any discussion about this, nor even one of those
'Consultations' that always ignore what the people want, and impose
the New Plan irregardless. Where does the money for a new Mayor
come from? This just came straight out of Rayner's head, fully
formed and ready to go. Meanwhile, our normal scheduled set of
council elections have been postponed. How convenient, we can't
throw any Labour councillors out for several years now. Whether or
not it is to prevent Reform gaining ground, it will have that
effect. I say that not as a Reform voter.
I don't know the details in your area[1], obviously, but plans to
amalgamate local authorities tend to be one of those processes which
take years to come to fruition.
Are you quite sure this sprang from the current Westmister
government? That sort of timescale sounds pretty much impossible.
[1] Here, two adjacent LAs now 'share' a chief executive. There has
been much discussion and speculation about the two LAs actually
merging for more than the last decade, but it hasn't happened yet nor
does it seem probable.
https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/council-news/suffolk-on-the-fast-track-towards-complete-council-restructuring-and-devolution
Ah. County Councils. We haven't had one of those for 30 years.
This unitary authority thing seems to
have just come out, like much of Labour's ideas, as pre-decided, and not
to be discussed about by the people who will actually live with it.
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
This unitary authority thing seems to
have just come out, like much of Labour's ideas, as pre-decided, and not
to be discussed about by the people who will actually live with it.
Most were a conservative idea, to get rid of the labour run district
councils on favour of the conservative county councils. The current changes were sanctioned under the last conservative govt.
On 03/05/2025 in message <vv5tgh$7ubo$5@dont-email.me> Vir Campestris
wrote:
On 30/04/2025 18:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
They had no idea what they were doing, and guessed. It had enormous
It's all very well saying that in hindsight, at the time we just
didn't know so the Conservatives played it safe to their credit.
economic cost and the NHS still hasn't recovered.
As I said though I have no faith that any of the other parties would
have done any better. They are all for obvious reasons full of people
who can make great speeches, rather than people who have technical
knowledge.
Andy
You're entitled to your view but you seem to have no/little experience
of dealing with once in a lifetime issues.
On 03/05/2025 21:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 03/05/2025 in message <vv5tgh$7ubo$5@dont-email.me> Vir CampestrisAt that level, I don't. But my point is that neither do the politicians.
wrote:
On 30/04/2025 18:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's all very well saying that in hindsight, at the time we justThey had no idea what they were doing, and guessed. It had enormous
didn't know so the Conservatives played it safe to their credit.
economic cost and the NHS still hasn't recovered.
As I said though I have no faith that any of the other parties would
have done any better. They are all for obvious reasons full of people
who can make great speeches, rather than people who have technical
knowledge.
You're entitled to your view but you seem to have no/little experience
of dealing with once in a lifetime issues.
Of any party.
On 03/05/2025 21:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 03/05/2025 in message <vv5tgh$7ubo$5@dont-email.me> Vir Campestris >>wrote:At that level, I don't. But my point is that neither do the politicians.
On 30/04/2025 18:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
They had no idea what they were doing, and guessed. It had enormous >>>economic cost and the NHS still hasn't recovered.
It's all very well saying that in hindsight, at the time we just didn't >>>>know so the Conservatives played it safe to their credit.
As I said though I have no faith that any of the other parties would have >>>done any better. They are all for obvious reasons full of people who can >>>make great speeches, rather than people who have technical knowledge.
Andy
You're entitled to your view but you seem to have no/little experience of >>dealing with once in a lifetime issues.
Of any party.
On 07/05/2025 in message <vvfctc$v2jp$2@dont-email.me> Vir Campestris
wrote:
On 03/05/2025 21:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 03/05/2025 in message <vv5tgh$7ubo$5@dont-email.me> Vir CampestrisAt that level, I don't. But my point is that neither do the
wrote:
On 30/04/2025 18:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
They had no idea what they were doing, and guessed. It had enormous
It's all very well saying that in hindsight, at the time we just
didn't know so the Conservatives played it safe to their credit.
economic cost and the NHS still hasn't recovered.
As I said though I have no faith that any of the other parties
would have done any better. They are all for obvious reasons full
of people who can make great speeches, rather than people who have
technical knowledge.
Andy
You're entitled to your view but you seem to have no/little
experience of dealing with once in a lifetime issues.
politicians. Of any party.
Indeed, nobody has any experience of what looked in the early days as if
it might be a repeat of the Black Death so they did very well in the circumstances.
The lockdown was to prevent overload of the NHS and hold deaths to below >50,000You're entitled to your view but you seem to have no/little experience >>>of dealing with once in a lifetime issues.
At that level, I don't. But my point is that neither do the politicians. >>>Of any party.
Indeed, nobody has any experience of what looked in the early days as if
it might be a repeat of the Black Death so they did very well in the >>circumstances.
In the end IIRC 250,000 died, but not all at once so the NHS coped. Just
On 07/05/2025 12:32, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 03/05/2025 21:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2025 18:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's all very well saying that in hindsight, at the time we just
didn't know so the Conservatives played it safe to their credit.
They had no idea what they were doing, and guessed. It had enormous
economic cost and the NHS still hasn't recovered.
As I said though I have no faith that any of the other parties
would have done any better. They are all for obvious reasons full
of people who can make great speeches, rather than people who have
technical knowledge.
You're entitled to your view but you seem to have no/little
experience of dealing with once in a lifetime issues.
At that level, I don't. But my point is that neither do the
politicians. Of any party.
Indeed, nobody has any experience of what looked in the early days as
if it might be a repeat of the Black Death so they did very well in
the circumstances.
The lockdown was to prevent overload of the NHS and hold deaths to below 50,000
In the end IIRC 250,000 died, but not all at once so the NHS coped. Just
In article <xU8SP.113806$4AHa.61818@fx16.ams1>,
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2025 20:18, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2025 19:15:02 +0100Ah. County Councils. We haven't had one of those for 30 years.
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2025 12:34, Davey wrote:In fact, it's more the Couty Councils, but the basic principle is the
On Sun, 4 May 2025 10:15:37 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
I kept all electioneering flyers by the front door, Tory sent four, >>>>>> Reform one (hand written envelope IIRC) everyone else zero.
However, his note contains NO information about who their local
candidate might be. Further, he complains about inadequate bin
collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand that bins are collected >>>>>>> by the local District Council, not Kent County Council.
Here the city council is proposing to take-over parts of the
surrounding district and borough councils, increasing the size of
the city, probably transferring roles from the county council.
My district council doesn't want to get sucked-in to the larger
city, I doubt many of the residents do either, our bins get
emptied pretty reliably, yeah we get potholes, but they're
noticeably worse as you cross the city limits.
Here, several District Councils are to be conglomerated into one.
And there will be a new Mayor.
I don't remember any discussion about this, nor even one of those
'Consultations' that always ignore what the people want, and impose
the New Plan irregardless. Where does the money for a new Mayor
come from? This just came straight out of Rayner's head, fully
formed and ready to go. Meanwhile, our normal scheduled set of
council elections have been postponed. How convenient, we can't
throw any Labour councillors out for several years now. Whether or
not it is to prevent Reform gaining ground, it will have that
effect. I say that not as a Reform voter.
I don't know the details in your area[1], obviously, but plans to
amalgamate local authorities tend to be one of those processes which
take years to come to fruition.
Are you quite sure this sprang from the current Westmister
government? That sort of timescale sounds pretty much impossible.
[1] Here, two adjacent LAs now 'share' a chief executive. There has
been much discussion and speculation about the two LAs actually
merging for more than the last decade, but it hasn't happened yet nor
does it seem probable.
same.n
https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/council-news/suffolk-on-the-fast-track-towards-complete-council-restructuring-and-devolution
We've still got one (Surrey), but not for much longer
We've still got one (Surrey), but not for much longer
Same here in West Sussex. We're going to end up with a
Brighton and other non-rural electorate enforcing a
LIB/LAB/GREEN mayor on the rest of us.
On 05/05/2025 21:30, charles wrote:
In article <xU8SP.113806$4AHa.61818@fx16.ams1>,
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2025 20:18, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2025 19:15:02 +0100Ah. County Councils. We haven't had one of those for 30 years.
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 04/05/2025 12:34, Davey wrote:In fact, it's more the Couty Councils, but the basic principle is
On Sun, 4 May 2025 10:15:37 +0100
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Our Nige seems to decided to send me a generic plea to vote
for his lot next month. Came by post, too.
I kept all electioneering flyers by the front door, Tory sent
four, Reform one (hand written envelope IIRC) everyone else
zero.
However, his note contains NO information about who their
local candidate might be. Further, he complains about
inadequate bin collections. Perhaps he doesn't understand
that bins are collected by the local District Council, not
Kent County Council.
Here the city council is proposing to take-over parts of the
surrounding district and borough councils, increasing the size
of the city, probably transferring roles from the county
council.
My district council doesn't want to get sucked-in to the larger
city, I doubt many of the residents do either, our bins get
emptied pretty reliably, yeah we get potholes, but they're
noticeably worse as you cross the city limits.
Here, several District Councils are to be conglomerated into
one. And there will be a new Mayor.
I don't remember any discussion about this, nor even one of
those 'Consultations' that always ignore what the people want,
and impose the New Plan irregardless. Where does the money for
a new Mayor come from? This just came straight out of Rayner's
head, fully formed and ready to go. Meanwhile, our normal
scheduled set of council elections have been postponed. How
convenient, we can't throw any Labour councillors out for
several years now. Whether or not it is to prevent Reform
gaining ground, it will have that effect. I say that not as a
Reform voter.
I don't know the details in your area[1], obviously, but plans to
amalgamate local authorities tend to be one of those processes
which take years to come to fruition.
Are you quite sure this sprang from the current Westmister
government? That sort of timescale sounds pretty much impossible.
[1] Here, two adjacent LAs now 'share' a chief executive. There
has been much discussion and speculation about the two LAs
actually merging for more than the last decade, but it hasn't
happened yet nor does it seem probable.
the same.n
https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/council-news/suffolk-on-the-fast-track-towards-complete-council-restructuring-and-devolution
We've still got one (Surrey), but not for much longer
Same here in West Sussex. We're going to end up with a
Brighton and other non-rural electorate enforcing a
LIB/LAB/GREEN mayor on the rest of us.
Meanwhile *all* the council staff will get P45's and
big-bung payoffs, and the next day, rejoin on the same
job, but at a much higher salary with the new authority.
On 07/05/2025 in message <vvgc6n$152ue$3@dont-email.me> Andrew wrote:
We've still got one (Surrey), but not for much longer
Same here in West Sussex. We're going to end up with a
Brighton and other non-rural electorate enforcing a
LIB/LAB/GREEN mayor on the rest of us.
Heaven forfend!
I used to work with a lady who would turn in her grave at the though of socialism in West Sussex :-)
On 7 May 2025 at 21:17:10 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 07/05/2025 in message <vvgc6n$152ue$3@dont-email.me> Andrew wrote:
We've still got one (Surrey), but not for much longerSame here in West Sussex. We're going to end up with a Brighton and
other non-rural electorate enforcing a LIB/LAB/GREEN mayor on the rest
of us.
Heaven forfend!
I used to work with a lady who would turn in her grave at the though of
socialism in West Sussex :-)
Brighton Kemptown.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:01:11 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,770 |