"What's your opinion of that filthy rag, the Mirror, lying about the UKIP, candidate which resulted in the loss of his job and home?"
I don't know the story. I'm trying to live the life of the bon viveur now that Labour have imploded so I'm not too in touch. I'll google.....
......But the Mail story is certain to cause a young girl enormous (and possibly lasting) distress through no fault of her own so the UKIP story would have to be pretty awful to compete
I'm sorry, Roger, but I have to disagree
The use of charitable funds for a dependent of an employee of the charity is bad enough (i.e. KC paying for the son). The fact that it is then reciprocated with a bursary (presumably discretionary) being granted to the the daughter of a employee of an organisation where the chairman of school governors is on the board just stinks.
I would hope that all these conflicts were properly declared and reported appropriately to the tax authorities. I have my doubts, though.
Of course you feel sorry for the girl in question - and maybe the Mail shouldn't have used any photo - but there is no way that you can break a story like this without identifying the girl (even if you don't name her specifically).
And a story like this should be told as widely as possible.
Forgive my language, but why the F did Batmanghelidjh, as head of a charity, have a chauffeur?
TFTFW
the reason why we have seen a proliferation of overweight people on scooters. Too Fat To F*cking Walk.
Or as some of my more cynical colleagues call it : SBF (Suicide By Food)
Thanks again. So the forced mergers were done by the government?
Sounds like they made even more of a balls up with that and nationalisation than the privitisation years later.
It's hardly a ringing endorsement of government meddling in the railways.
David Wragg's book on the subject, which I would recommend although it is ten years old, is called 'Signal Failure: Politics and Britain's Railways.' That title does rather sum matters up!
There were complex pressures on the government in 1922: the status quo was unsustainable, the geographical mergers they wanted were blocked by shareholders, who were unable unfortunately to see the broader picture and how that would suit their own interests and nationalisation couldn't be got past the backbenches. But I agree the result was a mess.
I often think Enoch Powell's suggestion on the even more chaotic ownership situation of the major docks and ports had merit for railways too - nationalise the lot, sort it out properly, break them into logical, coherent and viable groups, and then denationalise them again!
We have a fascinating few years ahead of us, it seems: Labour ceasing to exist as a serious political party and the UK just ceasing to exist. In the great scheme of things the former will be no great loss; the latter, though, will be of major consequence. I wonder how we and the rest of the world will react when it happens.
What odds will you offer me: I think the UK will still exist at the date of the next General Election (assuming it is May 2020)
Latest polls show No would still narrowly win an indyref 2
Are you trying to make sure I get less good odds? Be off with you!
I saw that docu - I really felt for her husband. And didn't she have Othello Syndrome too that made her incredibly jealous and paranoid that he was cheating on her? Making him take multiple lie detector tests using her phone app was a new one to me.
She was a lazy arse with a totally compliant audience of one. He had a degree too and seemed like a living doormat.
Mr. Notme, it always baffles me to see such fat people. It must take horrendous effort to gain so much weight.
Edited extra bit: someone [forget who] asked for a picture of the newly acquired hound.
I think 'acceptance' is part of the problem, there seems to be no shame to getting yourself to thirty stone, and some kind of belief that everyone should adjust themselves to suit you. At least Camel Batwoman is/was gainfully employed. There was a show i watched in which the whole thing was a scam between a husband and wife, she was fat (though not too fat she couldnt live a normal life and work) and he was a carer. Neither of them worked. Since we are continuously being told how those in poverty, on benefits in the UK are heavily dependent on foodbanks, you have to ask yourself how come this couple could have so much surplus income for her to eat so much.
She would have to eat 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day to just sustain herself at that weight.
We have a fascinating few years ahead of us, it seems: Labour ceasing to exist as a serious political party and the UK just ceasing to exist. In the great scheme of things the former will be no great loss; the latter, though, will be of major consequence. I wonder how we and the rest of the world will react when it happens.
What odds will you offer me: I think the UK will still exist at the date of the next General Election (assuming it is May 2020)
I fear SO has been supping at the cup of SeanT nervous nelliedom.
Labour will muddle through once the Unions see what 'getting what they want' means at the ballot box.
And if the Scots wouldn't vote for Independence with oil at $102 they sure as heck aren't going to vote for it at $48 - because Nicola won't ask the question......
The price of oil is irrelevant to Scotland's economy , Black Douglas said so.
Thanks again. So the forced mergers were done by the government?
Sounds like they made even more of a balls up with that and nationalisation than the privitisation years later.
It's hardly a ringing endorsement of government meddling in the railways.
David Wragg's book on the subject, which I would recommend although it is ten years old, is called 'Signal Failure: Politics and Britain's Railways.' That title does rather sum matters up!
There were complex pressures on the government in 1922: the status quo was unsustainable, the geographical mergers they wanted were blocked by shareholders, who were unable unfortunately to see the broader picture and how that would suit their own interests and nationalisation couldn't be got past the backbenches. But I agree the result was a mess.
I often think Enoch Powell's suggestion on the even more chaotic ownership situation of the major docks and ports had merit for railways too - nationalise the lot, sort it out properly, break them into logical, coherent and viable groups, and then denationalise them again!
Though right from the beginning railways were an easy way to lose money for investors:
"What's your opinion of that filthy rag, the Mirror, lying about the UKIP, candidate which resulted in the loss of his job and home?"
I don't know the story. I'm trying to live the life of the bon viveur now that Labour have imploded so I'm not too in touch. I'll google.....
......But the Mail story is certain to cause a young girl enormous (and possibly lasting) distress through no fault of her own so the UKIP story would have to be pretty awful to compete
I'm sorry, Roger, but I have to disagree
The use of charitable funds for a dependent of an employee of the charity is bad enough (i.e. KC paying for the son). The fact that it is then reciprocated with a bursary (presumably discretionary) being granted to the the daughter of a employee of an organisation where the chairman of school governors is on the board just stinks.
I would hope that all these conflicts were properly declared and reported appropriately to the tax authorities. I have my doubts, though.
Of course you feel sorry for the girl in question - and maybe the Mail shouldn't have used any photo - but there is no way that you can break a story like this without identifying the girl (even if you don't name her specifically).
And a story like this should be told as widely as possible.
Forgive my language, but why the F did Batmanghelidjh, as head of a charity, have a chauffeur?
Presumably as additional compensation, while keeping her headline salary down to political acceptable levels.
FWIW, the CEO of my foundation is paid a similar amount to Batmanghelidjh, albeit without the perks, but she does a good job of running a small, but complex, organisation
Mr. Doethur, that just seems odd to me. Why not eat less, exercise more? I don't even like exercise, but as my work and hobbies largely involve sitting in a chair, staring at a screen, it makes sense.
We have a fascinating few years ahead of us, it seems: Labour ceasing to exist as a serious political party and the UK just ceasing to exist. In the great scheme of things the former will be no great loss; the latter, though, will be of major consequence. I wonder how we and the rest of the world will react when it happens.
What odds will you offer me: I think the UK will still exist at the date of the next General Election (assuming it is May 2020)
Latest polls show No would still narrowly win an indyref 2
Are you trying to make sure I get less good odds? Be off with you!
The strength of the SNP should ensure your odds are not too bad
Mr. Doethur, that just seems odd to me. Why not eat less, exercise more? I don't even like exercise, but as my work and hobbies largely involve sitting in a chair, staring at a screen, it makes sense.
THe most amusing part of that (for a given value of amusing) was that Isambard Kingdom Brunel had been repeatedly attacked by the press and shareholders for extravagance on the Great Western mainline, while Hudson was held up as a glowing example of what financial returns could be achieved.
Just think too - if it had happened in America maybe we would talk about Hudson schemes rather than Ponzis!
Thanks again. So the forced mergers were done by the government?
Sounds like they made even more of a balls up with that and nationalisation than the privitisation years later.
It's hardly a ringing endorsement of government meddling in the railways.
David Wragg's book on the subject, which I would recommend although it is ten years old, is called 'Signal Failure: Politics and Britain's Railways.' That title does rather sum matters up!
There were complex pressures on the government in 1922: the status quo was unsustainable, the geographical mergers they wanted were blocked by shareholders, who were unable unfortunately to see the broader picture and how that would suit their own interests and nationalisation couldn't be got past the backbenches. But I agree the result was a mess.
I often think Enoch Powell's suggestion on the even more chaotic ownership situation of the major docks and ports had merit for railways too - nationalise the lot, sort it out properly, break them into logical, coherent and viable groups, and then denationalise them again!
Thanks for all this - great stuff.
If I had to condense what I believe happened, it is in the first world war the governments used the railways extensively, grinding them into the ground. Maintenance was done on a minimal basis, and much traffic was unpaid for. After the war, the government owed the railways massive amounts. The answer was to make the old entities obsolete by grouping them.
Likewise the Second World War, except it was nationalisation rather than grouping.
They were basically ways for the government to get out of their obligations to a network abused by the requirements of fighting a world war.
And then when they did start investing heavily - in the 1955 modernisation plan - it was a typically poor example of central planning. Although some good came out of it, a vast amount of money was wasted.
As for privatisation versus nationalisation, Geddes view seems about right; "Geddes viewed the pre-war competition as wasteful, but was opposed to nationalisation on the grounds that it led to poor management, as well as a mutually corrupting influence between railway and political interests."
Mr. City, could also present the SNP with the opportunity to be the 'real' opposition, or present themselves as such.
Miliband's intellectual self-confidence was not justified when it comes to changing the leadership election rules.
No, the party Corbyn poses a threat to is not the Tories, but the SNP. A Corbyn led Labour could win back swathes of seats in the Central belt the SNP gained in May
Disagree.
A leftwing stance was a necessary, not sufficient, condition for the SNP success. It was driven by the enthusiasm they generated in the referendum campaign and the ability to establish a view that they choice was SNP or "one of the others": i.e. that the other three parties were basically interchangeable.
A Corbyn set of policies won't be sufficient to over-turn the SNP support, although it may mean that voters will at least listen to Labour again in Scotland.
Before Corbyn could take the fight to the SNP let alone the Tories, he would first need to clear out the SLAB stables and the barrels full of rotten apples. This would take a couple of years as SLAB's problems are so endemic.
In my constituency, Stirling, we have a SLAB/Tory coalition running the council, suffice to say given all the vested interests of both parties, this coalition makes some very odd decisions. A good example is the town where I live has a population of 10,000, but no petrol station, this is due to small minded small businessmen (most of them Tories) blocking a new supermarket development which would have created 300 much needed jobs - even though 70% of local residents wanted the supermarket to go ahead.
"What's your opinion of that filthy rag, the Mirror, lying about the UKIP, candidate which resulted in the loss of his job and home?"
I don't know the story. I'm trying to live the life of the bon viveur now that Labour have imploded so I'm not too in touch. I'll google.....
......But the Mail story is certain to cause a young girl enormous (and possibly lasting) distress through no fault of her own so the UKIP story would have to be pretty awful to compete
I'm sorry, Roger, but I have to disagree
The use of charitable funds for a dependent of an employee of the charity is bad enough (i.e. KC paying for the son). The fact that it is then reciprocated with a bursary (presumably discretionary) being granted to the the daughter of a employee of an organisation where the chairman of school governors is on the board just stinks.
I would hope that all these conflicts were properly declared and reported appropriately to the tax authorities. I have my doubts, though.
Of course you feel sorry for the girl in question - and maybe the Mail shouldn't have used any photo - but there is no way that you can break a story like this without identifying the girl (even if you don't name her specifically).
And a story like this should be told as widely as possible.
Forgive my language, but why the F did Batmanghelidjh, as head of a charity, have a chauffeur?
Presumably as additional compensation, while keeping her headline salary down to political acceptable levels.
FWIW, the CEO of my foundation is paid a similar amount to Batmanghelidjh, albeit without the perks, but she does a good job of running a small, but complex, organisation
Her salary is relatively modest for such a large organisation. I suspected that there were lots of hidden payments in general expenses and claimables. I expect her pension and redundancy terms to be ludicrously beyond the pale generous.
THe most amusing part of that (for a given value of amusing) was that Isambard Kingdom Brunel had been repeatedly attacked by the press and shareholders for extravagance on the Great Western mainline, while Hudson was held up as a glowing example of what financial returns could be achieved.
Just think too - if it had happened in America maybe we would talk about Hudson schemes rather than Ponzis!
Hudson was a great character, who I'd love to write into a story sometime. Visionary villain, and a robber businessman, who ended up penniless. If it hadn't been for him, the railways might have been nationalised in the 1840s ...
Although I much prefer Samuel Peto, a great developer/engineer and an archetypal Victorian rags - riches - rags story. He is much more of a sympathetic character than Hudson.
I don't think it means that the deputy leadership candidates think Corbyn is going to win, it just means that they realise there's no upside to saying you won't serve under him.
A large chunk of the electorate will be voting Corbyn, or will be sympathetic to him, so you don't really want to piss them off, particularly in an AV system. While those who don't support Corbyn will want their candidate to actually stick around and preserve some influence for the centre/right of the party - and will be aware that the deputy leader could be important if Corbyn is forced out.
Also, they may be responsible politicians who realise that denouncing half the party as mad trotskyites isn't really helpful to anybody, including Burnham and Cooper.
@HurstLlama@ydoethur Re OffQual or whatever the exam board thingy is called - there's a docu on ITV on Thursday evening about allegations of malpratice/cheating *money for marks* Exposure - Making The Grade.
If I had to condense what I believe happened, it is in the first world war the governments used the railways extensively, grinding them into the ground. Maintenance was done on a minimal basis, and much traffic was unpaid for. After the war, the government owed the railways massive amounts. The answer was to make the old entities obsolete by grouping them.
Likewise the Second World War, except it was nationalisation rather than grouping.
They were basically ways for the government to get out of their obligations to a network abused by the requirements of fighting a world war.
And then when they did start investing heavily - in the 1955 modernisation plan - it was a typically poor example of central planning. Although some good came out of it, a vast amount of money was wasted.
As for privatisation versus nationalisation, Geddes view seems about right; "Geddes viewed the pre-war competition as wasteful, but was opposed to nationalisation on the grounds that it led to poor management, as well as a mutually corrupting influence between railway and political interests."
Yes and no, to your point on debts. The governments had leased the railways from 1914-18, paying rents based on 1913 income (so the 'minimal income' isn't quite clear cut). They then extended that to 1922 to repair the damage you note, which you quite rightly point out was caused by a lack of maintenance. However, they were unable to do so in the time due to other economic pressures (the Triple Alliance strike and the 1920 slump) and it was obvious that a large number of railways would fold if returned to private hands on a status quo ante because they simply were too badly damaged to continue. So grouping was the fudge to try and deal with it.
The 1955 modernisation plan was a shambles. A detailed study of that, for those who want arguments, is also a very compelling argument against government ownership of the railways, as are the Beeching and Serpell reports (which showed about the same grasp of railway management as Chris Leslie shows of economic policy). Really, what idiot buys diesel engines that can barely themselves along by misunderstanding something so simple as the power-weight ratio difference between steam and diesel, then sends them to a shed used by steam locomotives? They were just asking for breakdowns!
THe most amusing part of that (for a given value of amusing) was that Isambard Kingdom Brunel had been repeatedly attacked by the press and shareholders for extravagance on the Great Western mainline, while Hudson was held up as a glowing example of what financial returns could be achieved.
Just think too - if it had happened in America maybe we would talk about Hudson schemes rather than Ponzis!
Hudson was a great character, who I'd love to write into a story sometime. Visionary villain, and a robber businessman, who ended up penniless. If it hadn't been for him, the railways might have been nationalised in the 1840s ...
Although I much prefer Samuel Peto, a great developer/engineer and an archetypal Victorian rags - riches - rags story. He is much more of a sympathetic character than Hudson.
You could add that he got a girl pregnant at age 15 (when he was 15, that is) and all his life was very um, active in that department, with his wife - among others.
@HurstLlama@ydoethur Re OffQual or whatever the exam board thingy is called - there's a docu on ITV on Thursday evening about allegations of malpratice/cheating *money for marks* Exposure - Making The Grade.
Thank you again Plato, but that's flattering timing isn't it? A-level results day.
Couldn't they at least give the no-longer-quite-children one evening to enjoy the results before they start rubbishing them?
Miss Plato, little while ago now, and I've probably told this anecdote before, but the marking for my religious studies A-levels (six exams in total) was total rubbish.
I got a D and an E for the 2nd and 3rd, which I knew was rubbish. Re-sat, didn't feel any more or less confident and got B and C. Unfortunately my 5th and 6th exams were also wrongly marked, but re-sitting when you've left school isn't easy, so my grade was less than it should've been [my A-levels are pretty poor, but generally that was deserved. Except in RS].
Yup, that was her. Why does everyone now to seem to have some kind of disorder that makes them unable to work? Is it a consequence of government crackdowns that we now essentially have state of minds categorised as definable diagnosed illnesses? 'Othello Syndrome', because she was jealous. And yes she used an app on an iphone as a lie detector, not as a joke, but as a way to see if her husband was cheating on her.
She was over twenty stone, but as Ive said, twenty stone isnt something that stops you from working. I used to be 22 stone, now im a little more than half that. I havent claimed anything other than a free university education in the 90s.
She was just pathologically lazy, with an army of people fussing around her providing support.
Mr. City, could also present the SNP with the opportunity to be the 'real' opposition, or present themselves as such.
Miliband's intellectual self-confidence was not justified when it comes to changing the leadership election rules.
No, the party Corbyn poses a threat to is not the Tories, but the SNP. A Corbyn led Labour could win back swathes of seats in the Central belt the SNP gained in May
Disagree.
A leftwing stance was a necessary, not sufficient, condition for the SNP success. It was driven by the enthusiasm they generated in the referendum campaign and the ability to establish a view that they choice was SNP or "one of the others": i.e. that the other three parties were basically interchangeable.
A Corbyn set of policies won't be sufficient to over-turn the SNP support, although it may mean that voters will at least listen to Labour again in Scotland.
Before Corbyn could take the fight to the SNP let alone the Tories, he would first need to clear out the SLAB stables and the barrels full of rotten apples. This would take a couple of years as SLAB's problems are so endemic.
In my constituency, Stirling, we have a SLAB/Tory coalition running the council, suffice to say given all the vested interests of both parties, this coalition makes some very odd decisions. A good example is the town where I live has a population of 10,000, but no petrol station, this is due to small minded small businessmen (most of them Tories) blocking a new supermarket development which would have created 300 much needed jobs - even though 70% of local residents wanted the supermarket to go ahead.
Councils cant just block planning applications because they dont like them. Dont be suckered into the PR guff done by likes of Sainsburys to whip up claims of local support. Your local council will make its planning decision based on the advice of the planning officer, which will be weighed against the council's own planning policies when the councillors make their decision.
If the Council does anything which you imply above the Supermarket will appeal and will win, and the council will be charged costs.
Yes and no, to your point on debts. The governments had leased the railways from 1914-18, paying rents based on 1913 income (so the 'minimal income' isn't quite clear cut). They then extended that to 1922 to repair the damage you note, which you quite rightly point out was caused by a lack of maintenance. However, they were unable to do so in the time due to other economic pressures (the Triple Alliance strike and the 1920 slump) and it was obvious that a large number of railways would fold if returned to private hands on a status quo ante because they simply were too badly damaged to continue. So grouping was the fudge to try and deal with it.
The 1955 modernisation plan was a shambles. A detailed study of that, for those who want arguments, is also a very compelling argument against government ownership of the railways, as are the Beeching and Serpell reports (which showed about the same grasp of railway management as Chris Leslie shows of economic policy). Really, what idiot buys diesel engines that can barely themselves along by misunderstanding something so simple as the power-weight ratio difference between steam and diesel, then sends them to a shed used by steam locomotives? They were just asking for breakdowns!
The Serpell report is fascinating, and little known. It should also be noted that Thatcher pretty much ignored the report.
IMHO BR started to turn the corner before privatisation, at the time of the sectorisation. It was also the time that Thatcher was in power. Whilst some say she hated the railways, the truth seems more that she though of them as being of minor importance, and therefore she let them get on with the job with minimal interference. Which was exactly that they, under the control of excellent managers such as Chris Green and others, needed.
Off-Topic, but just want to post something totally outrageous that I heard last night on the radio.
During a paper review on Stephen Nolan show, with Edwina Currie and Austin Mitchell on how the plod have dealt with / are dealing with crime and how they have been placing a huge amount of resources into investigating deceased individuals, the issue of Edward Heath came up. And Nolan (and I paraphrase here) basically said well you know the way he lived his life, the sort of person he was, fits the profile of a peadophile. Currie and Mitchell were totally and utterly godsmacked, and after both said they had met him and stated they didn't think the allegations were true, due to the person he was and the fact he was so in the spotlight. Nolan then linked in the likes of Saville, Harris and Hall as similar people.
Now I have no idea in regards to Heath, but it was the most outrageous thing I had heard for a long time, basically because somebody lived their life in a way you think isn't the norm must equal peado allegations must be true. Now, I wonder what Nolan thought of the way the all papers printed stories about Christopher Jefferies? Or how about the case of William Roache?
Reading this thread some PBers appear to think there is no attitude of 'shame' in regard to being fat. Which seems odd given that many kids who are fat, often grow up being bullied and demonised because of their weight. I think there's generally far bigger issue with women in particular being seen as fat - as opposed to men.
Introverts, despite being half the population, sometimes get tarred with a negative brush (not to that extent, but still) due to being quiet and happy in their own company. The idea a man who is single is somehow morally flawed is backward and ridiculous (as an aside, Basil II never got married, and he was amongst the most competent emperors in the entire history of the Roman Empire).
Reading this thread some PBers appear to think there is no attitude of 'shame' in regard to being fat. Which seems odd given that many kids who are fat, often grow up being bullied and demonised because of their weight. I think there's generally far bigger issue with women in particular being seen as fat - as opposed to men.
I would say in the younger generation there is now equal pressure for young guys to look a certain way i.e buff, as there is for young women to be slim. In my gym, I see very young guys, well I would say boys, that look very very stressed about trying to develop the physique of fully grown men who are in there lifting. None do cardio classes and very little cardio work in general.
THe most amusing part of that (for a given value of amusing) was that Isambard Kingdom Brunel had been repeatedly attacked by the press and shareholders for extravagance on the Great Western mainline, while Hudson was held up as a glowing example of what financial returns could be achieved.
Just think too - if it had happened in America maybe we would talk about Hudson schemes rather than Ponzis!
Hudson was a great character, who I'd love to write into a story sometime. Visionary villain, and a robber businessman, who ended up penniless. If it hadn't been for him, the railways might have been nationalised in the 1840s ...
Although I much prefer Samuel Peto, a great developer/engineer and an archetypal Victorian rags - riches - rags story. He is much more of a sympathetic character than Hudson.
You could add that he got a girl pregnant at age 15 (when he was 15, that is) and all his life was very um, active in that department, with his wife - among others.
Really, who needs Henry VIII?
Hudson's wife seems to have been rather - ahem - lacking in the societal niceties that her husband's new-found wealth and power thrust upon them. In all the histories I've read, I've ended up feeling rather sorry for her.
Ms. Apocalypse, kids will bully over almost anything. That's not to say it doesn't matter, just that it's a slightly different issue to the way adults view themselves and other adults.
I concur that there's a bigger issue with women, but that's partly down to women. Do you recall the 'Are you beach body ready?' nonsense? There were two photos, one of a lovely blonde lady in a bikini, the other of a shirtless chap. The chap was ridiculously muscled (he should've spent more time reading Edward Gibbon's works, and less time doing situps), and nobody cared. The woman was rather nice, and lots of women seemed to be offended by her presence in the advert.
On a biological level, it's also slightly harder (if memory serves) for women to lose weight.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Urquhart, I think I'm perhaps 5-10 years too old for that to have been an issue for me. Which is lucky, as I had the physique of a POW camp escapee in my teenage years [I could touch my spine through my stomach when I was about 13-14], and I'm not exactly overflowing with lard or muscles today.
Incidentally, as well as vomiting and diarrhoea, another method of bulimia little-known by the general public is excessive exercise.
@Morris_Dancer, I completely agree r.e the point of single people. There's a general idea though that happiness lies in one of the following: sex, relationships, or power. There is also this weird thing among my age group where if you aren't paralytically drunk you're a bit weird.
The Serpell report is fascinating, and little known. It should also be noted that Thatcher pretty much ignored the report.
IMHO BR started to turn the corner before privatisation, at the time of the sectorisation. It was also the time that Thatcher was in power. Whilst some say she hated the railways, the truth seems more that she though of them as being of minor importance, and therefore she let them get on with the job with minimal interference. Which was exactly that they, under the control of excellent managers such as Chris Green and others, needed.
I agree with that. It was under the Bob Reids that BR finally started to work, and that was because it was the moment it effectively broke free of the Department for Transport. Unfortunately, privatisation didn't really build on their excellent work. Imagine if it had been privatised on the sector basis, with franchise operations for freight and through expresses. They also started to increase the frequency of trains on some underused lines (e.g. on the Chase line here in Cannock, which was freight only until the 1980s).
However, privatisation has undoubtedly improved matters in a number of places - more frequent services in some parts of Wales, for instance, and the impressive Chiltern Trains. It's just been very uneven in quality (anyone remember the notorious Connex franchise?) and rather expensive. Which is a shame.
Miss Plato, little while ago now, and I've probably told this anecdote before, but the marking for my religious studies A-levels (six exams in total) was total rubbish.
I got a D and an E for the 2nd and 3rd, which I knew was rubbish. Re-sat, didn't feel any more or less confident and got B and C. Unfortunately my 5th and 6th exams were also wrongly marked, but re-sitting when you've left school isn't easy, so my grade was less than it should've been [my A-levels are pretty poor, but generally that was deserved. Except in RS].
Daughter RS GCSE mark was a D. Paid for a paper to be re-marked and came out as A. Not the first daft mark and you wonder what those where the parents lacked the cash or drive to challenge would miss out.
The Serpell report is fascinating, and little known. It should also be noted that Thatcher pretty much ignored the report.
IMHO BR started to turn the corner before privatisation, at the time of the sectorisation. It was also the time that Thatcher was in power. Whilst some say she hated the railways, the truth seems more that she though of them as being of minor importance, and therefore she let them get on with the job with minimal interference. Which was exactly that they, under the control of excellent managers such as Chris Green and others, needed.
I agree with that. It was under the Bob Reids that BR finally started to work, and that was because it was the moment it effectively broke free of the Department for Transport. Unfortunately, privatisation didn't really build on their excellent work. Imagine if it had been privatised on the sector basis, with franchise operations for freight and through expresses. They also started to increase the frequency of trains on some underused lines (e.g. on the Chase line here in Cannock, which was freight only until the 1980s).
However, privatisation has undoubtedly improved matters in a number of places - more frequent services in some parts of Wales, for instance, and the impressive Chiltern Trains. It's just been very uneven in quality (anyone remember the notorious Connex franchise?) and rather expensive. Which is a shame.
BR was also very uneven in quality (though I only saw the very end), and much of the cost on the railways is in the infrastructure (i.e. Railtrack / Network Rail) rather than the operators.
Could the railways have been privatised on a sector basis and still fulfilled EU directive 91/440/EC ? (and yes, I had to look the number up )
Reading this thread some PBers appear to think there is no attitude of 'shame' in regard to being fat. Which seems odd given that many kids who are fat, often grow up being bullied and demonised because of their weight. I think there's generally far bigger issue with women in particular being seen as fat - as opposed to men.
I would say in the younger generation there is now equal pressure for young guys to look a certain way i.e buff, as there is for young women to be slim. I see very young guys, well I would say boys, that look very very stressed about trying to develop the physique of fully grown men who are in there lifting.
I wouldn't say that.
While I think there has been an increase in the pressure to look a certain way for men, it is nowhere near the pressure for women - nor do all men collectively feel that pressure, in the same way practically all women do. If anything among some men I've dated there's a hypocrisy - and expectation of 'perfection' from me, but not holding themselves to the same standards.
There appears to be this generally bizarre expectation in particular that young woman = perfect body with no flaws whatsoever, which speaking to many my age isn't the case at all.
Ms. Apocalypse, kids will bully over almost anything. That's not to say it doesn't matter, just that it's a slightly different issue to the way adults view themselves and other adults.
I concur that there's a bigger issue with women, but that's partly down to women. Do you recall the 'Are you beach body ready?' nonsense? There were two photos, one of a lovely blonde lady in a bikini, the other of a shirtless chap. The chap was ridiculously muscled (he should've spent more time reading Edward Gibbon's works, and less time doing situps), and nobody cared. The woman was rather nice, and lots of women seemed to be offended by her presence in the advert.
On a biological level, it's also slightly harder (if memory serves) for women to lose weight.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Urquhart, I think I'm perhaps 5-10 years too old for that to have been an issue for me. Which is lucky, as I had the physique of a POW camp escapee in my teenage years [I could touch my spine through my stomach when I was about 13-14], and I'm not exactly overflowing with lard or muscles today.
Incidentally, as well as vomiting and diarrhoea, another method of bulimia little-known by the general public is excessive exercise.
I don't see how women make it 'harder' for themselves by the example that you've mentioned. On that advert there appeared to be the correlation that healthy meant = the ideal body, which isn't necessarily the case. Everyone's ideal body will somewhat differ from person to person.
Miss Plato, little while ago now, and I've probably told this anecdote before, but the marking for my religious studies A-levels (six exams in total) was total rubbish.
I got a D and an E for the 2nd and 3rd, which I knew was rubbish. Re-sat, didn't feel any more or less confident and got B and C. Unfortunately my 5th and 6th exams were also wrongly marked, but re-sitting when you've left school isn't easy, so my grade was less than it should've been [my A-levels are pretty poor, but generally that was deserved. Except in RS].
My guess MD is that you probably came up against an Evangelical Christian. They shouldn't allow their views to influence their marking - but in practice of course they do.
Can I just point out though that markers are normally paid about £2 per script, have over 200 of them to mark on average, have to fit them around full time teaching jobs (exam boards won't take people out of the classroom for more than 2 years) and are often juggling family life as well? Moreover, from bitter experience it's very difficult to mark 55 papers from the same school that all say essentially the same thing (because only about 3 of them have shown any initiative on their own account) and not lose your temper reading the same thing for the 52nd time at midnight after a full day's teaching and ordinary marking as well.
It's not at all an easy job, and it's often a thankless one. I know that must be less than helpful to those disappointed with their marks though.
Could the railways have been privatised on a sector basis and still fulfilled EU directive 91/440/EC ? (and yes, I had to look the number up )
Yes, very easily. Have one company registered for track, and one for trains. Have the same board, and management, and employees for both companies, two annual reports and two sets of accounts.
The French did it that way, although in their case it was state entities rather than companies.
Why I, as a Tory, despair at our bedazzled PM’s decision to give this woman a second chance: Kids Company has been a tragedy waiting to happen, writes Conservative MP DAVID DAVIES
Could the railways have been privatised on a sector basis and still fulfilled EU directive 91/440/EC ? (and yes, I had to look the number up )
Yes, very easily. Have one company registered for track, and one for trains. Have the same board, and management, and employees for both companies, two annual reports and two sets of accounts.
The French did it that way, although in their case it was state entities rather than companies.
Mr. Doethur, I can appreciate that. I'd still rather do that than the hell of proofreading, though.
MD, I've done both. Believe me, I prefer proofreading. It involves much the same amount of effort as history papers are marked for SPaG, and at least you don't have to grade the proofs at the end!
15 years ago most people had a favourable opinion of mega-charities and the people who work for them. Today that's been completely reversed. The main reason is that charities decided that harassing people on the phone, in the street, online, through mailshots, etc was a price worth paying if it meant increased donations.
Mr. Doethur, you may have a better mindset than me, then. I go a bit OCD and hateful over proofreading my own stuff. Takes ages, I often go over the same sentence several times, and loathe every minute of it. But, even if I had the money, I wouldn't pay someone else to do it because then if a reader pointed out an error I'd be irritated rather than grateful.
The media seems to have decided to paint Corbyn as more left wing than he is.
This gives him the opportunity to explain they have exaggerated what he said and so he comes across as a very reasonable person - and the media are exposed as being biased in their reporting.
Could the railways have been privatised on a sector basis and still fulfilled EU directive 91/440/EC ? (and yes, I had to look the number up )
Yes, very easily. Have one company registered for track, and one for trains. Have the same board, and management, and employees for both companies, two annual reports and two sets of accounts.
The French did it that way, although in their case it was state entities rather than companies.
Network Rail is effectively a nationalised entity
Network Rail is already in public ownership.
But the media don't seem to know and present the threat of its being taken into public ownership as 'nationalisation'.
Why I, as a Tory, despair at our bedazzled PM’s decision to give this woman a second chance: Kids Company has been a tragedy waiting to happen, writes Conservative MP DAVID DAVIES
OT If you enjoyed Millionaire Matchmaker, I've just started on The Batchelorette - 25 guys aim to win a single mum's hand in marriage. It's the cheesiest hoot. ITVBe.
Reading this thread some PBers appear to think there is no attitude of 'shame' in regard to being fat. Which seems odd given that many kids who are fat, often grow up being bullied and demonised because of their weight. I think there's generally far bigger issue with women in particular being seen as fat - as opposed to men.
Why I, as a Tory, despair at our bedazzled PM’s decision to give this woman a second chance: Kids Company has been a tragedy waiting to happen, writes Conservative MP DAVID DAVIES
Ms. Apocalypse, 'society' is 50/50 men and women, it's worth recalling.
And I still don't see why women cared. What was the problem?
On you're first point: I don't see why that matters. Society has always been 50/50 women and men, yet women have historically not even been valued as men's equal.
On the women caring: I guess they felt advert reflects the pressure of women to achieve an 'ideal' body type.
Mr. Alex, not sure but there might be another Conservative whose name actually is David Davies, as well as the defeated leadership contender David Davis.
Why I, as a Tory, despair at our bedazzled PM’s decision to give this woman a second chance: Kids Company has been a tragedy waiting to happen, writes Conservative MP DAVID DAVIES
Introverts, despite being half the population, sometimes get tarred with a negative brush (not to that extent, but still) due to being quiet and happy in their own company. The idea a man who is single is somehow morally flawed is backward and ridiculous (as an aside, Basil II never got married, and he was amongst the most competent emperors in the entire history of the Roman Empire).
Why I, as a Tory, despair at our bedazzled PM’s decision to give this woman a second chance: Kids Company has been a tragedy waiting to happen, writes Conservative MP DAVID DAVIES
Could the railways have been privatised on a sector basis and still fulfilled EU directive 91/440/EC ? (and yes, I had to look the number up )
Yes, very easily. Have one company registered for track, and one for trains. Have the same board, and management, and employees for both companies, two annual reports and two sets of accounts.
The French did it that way, although in their case it was state entities rather than companies.
Network Rail is effectively a nationalised entity
Network Rail is already in public ownership.
But the media don't seem to know and present the threat of its being taken into public ownership as 'nationalisation'.
And it is the nationalised part that is utterly failing. Again, I ask why Labour are trying to blame the government for the current mess NR is in, when they are a result of programmes planned, organised and undertaken by NR itself?
An instructor at my old gym was POW skinny and spent all her spare time cross-training. Finally the mgt told her to become a healthy weight or leave as she was setting a very poor example.
She wasn't just thin, but a bag of bones and pasty white.
I find this business of Minister being required to "direct" civil servants to process decisions with which they are in disagreement quite interesting, especially where the disagreement is because they believe it is a clear waste of public funds. If it does prove to be a clear waste of public funds why is this not a minimum resigning offence for the Minister in question, if not one which might lead to criminal investigation? Is there anything that Ministers don't have the power to do without consequence?
Could the railways have been privatised on a sector basis and still fulfilled EU directive 91/440/EC ? (and yes, I had to look the number up )
Yes, very easily. Have one company registered for track, and one for trains. Have the same board, and management, and employees for both companies, two annual reports and two sets of accounts.
The French did it that way, although in their case it was state entities rather than companies.
Ah, okay. ISTR that Major was rather wedded on the idea of going back to a Big Four style arrangement, before being persuaded otherwise.
How well has Open Access worked on the French railways under that arrangement? It's working very well over here for freight, and there are several OA passenger operators.
Friend of mine at school was the ONLY person taking A Level Music - she'd Grade 8 swot in almost everything and got an E. If it wasn't such a blindingly stupid mark, one would wonder if she'd been set the wrong syllabus and didn't notice during the exam.
Miss Plato, little while ago now, and I've probably told this anecdote before, but the marking for my religious studies A-levels (six exams in total) was total rubbish.
I got a D and an E for the 2nd and 3rd, which I knew was rubbish. Re-sat, didn't feel any more or less confident and got B and C. Unfortunately my 5th and 6th exams were also wrongly marked, but re-sitting when you've left school isn't easy, so my grade was less than it should've been [my A-levels are pretty poor, but generally that was deserved. Except in RS].
Daughter RS GCSE mark was a D. Paid for a paper to be re-marked and came out as A. Not the first daft mark and you wonder what those where the parents lacked the cash or drive to challenge would miss out.
OT If you enjoyed Millionaire Matchmaker, I've just started on The Batchelorette - 25 guys aim to win a single mum's hand in marriage. It's the cheesiest hoot. ITVBe.
Reading this thread some PBers appear to think there is no attitude of 'shame' in regard to being fat. Which seems odd given that many kids who are fat, often grow up being bullied and demonised because of their weight. I think there's generally far bigger issue with women in particular being seen as fat - as opposed to men.
Just saw this - thanks for the heads up on the Batchelorette. I'll look to see if it's on Iplayer.
Given that Cooper and Burnham are trying their best to say nothing and Kendall seems to have given up completely, all the evidence is surely saying that Corbyn could actually be about to win this!!
There seems to be little doubt about that now.
Bluntly, Corbyn has campaigned better, shown he wants it, been willing to speak out, and has taken risks in order to promote himself. He is well organised and has a huge number of enthused volunteers to make up for what he appears to lack in funding. He also has a highly seductive message, regardless of its merits.
Kendall has done most of that, but unfortunately she has been telling Labour some hard truths that they appear simply unwilling to hear at this stage.
Burnham and Cooper - the most charitable thing that can be said about them is that they don't appear to care who wins.
This leadership election has been a humiliating shambles for the Labour party - made worse by the fact that many people within the party appear to be living in the naive hope that it is galvanising politics in their favour.
As I have been saying for a while now, Labour is the Stupid Party.
I dunno - they're certainly making a pig's ear of this, but at least they didn't all fall over themselves to wave pom-poms for the Iraq war because Tony Blair seemed like such an honest guy. I wonder how 2005 would've gone if IDS and Michael Howard, and almost all their MPs, hadn't been such suckers.
Ms. Apocalypse, 'society' is 50/50 men and women, it's worth recalling.
And I still don't see why women cared. What was the problem?
On you're first point: I don't see why that matters. Society has always been 50/50 women and men, yet women have historically not even been valued as men's equal.
On the women caring: I guess they felt advert reflects the pressure of women to achieve an 'ideal' body type.
Comments
There were complex pressures on the government in 1922: the status quo was unsustainable, the geographical mergers they wanted were blocked by shareholders, who were unable unfortunately to see the broader picture and how that would suit their own interests and nationalisation couldn't be got past the backbenches. But I agree the result was a mess.
I often think Enoch Powell's suggestion on the even more chaotic ownership situation of the major docks and ports had merit for railways too - nationalise the lot, sort it out properly, break them into logical, coherent and viable groups, and then denationalise them again!
She was a lazy arse with a totally compliant audience of one. He had a degree too and seemed like a living doormat.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/a7awj68e8x/Final_Times_Results_150202_Website.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Mania
FWIW, the CEO of my foundation is paid a similar amount to Batmanghelidjh, albeit without the perks, but she does a good job of running a small, but complex, organisation
Mr. Doethur, that just seems odd to me. Why not eat less, exercise more? I don't even like exercise, but as my work and hobbies largely involve sitting in a chair, staring at a screen, it makes sense.
Just think too - if it had happened in America maybe we would talk about Hudson schemes rather than Ponzis!
If I had to condense what I believe happened, it is in the first world war the governments used the railways extensively, grinding them into the ground. Maintenance was done on a minimal basis, and much traffic was unpaid for. After the war, the government owed the railways massive amounts. The answer was to make the old entities obsolete by grouping them.
Likewise the Second World War, except it was nationalisation rather than grouping.
They were basically ways for the government to get out of their obligations to a network abused by the requirements of fighting a world war.
And then when they did start investing heavily - in the 1955 modernisation plan - it was a typically poor example of central planning. Although some good came out of it, a vast amount of money was wasted.
As for privatisation versus nationalisation, Geddes view seems about right; "Geddes viewed the pre-war competition as wasteful, but was opposed to nationalisation on the grounds that it led to poor management, as well as a mutually corrupting influence between railway and political interests."
He was right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railways_Act_1921
In my constituency, Stirling, we have a SLAB/Tory coalition running the council, suffice to say given all the vested interests of both parties, this coalition makes some very odd decisions. A good example is the town where I live has a population of 10,000, but no petrol station, this is due to small minded small businessmen (most of them Tories) blocking a new supermarket development which would have created 300 much needed jobs - even though 70% of local residents wanted the supermarket to go ahead.
Call it "Kits Club"
Chose an outlandish name like Plato Cat Fan Jelly
£ 3 million nailed on.
Although I much prefer Samuel Peto, a great developer/engineer and an archetypal Victorian rags - riches - rags story. He is much more of a sympathetic character than Hudson.
A large chunk of the electorate will be voting Corbyn, or will be sympathetic to him, so you don't really want to piss them off, particularly in an AV system. While those who don't support Corbyn will want their candidate to actually stick around and preserve some influence for the centre/right of the party - and will be aware that the deputy leader could be important if Corbyn is forced out.
Also, they may be responsible politicians who realise that denouncing half the party as mad trotskyites isn't really helpful to anybody, including Burnham and Cooper.
The 1955 modernisation plan was a shambles. A detailed study of that, for those who want arguments, is also a very compelling argument against government ownership of the railways, as are the Beeching and Serpell reports (which showed about the same grasp of railway management as Chris Leslie shows of economic policy). Really, what idiot buys diesel engines that can barely themselves along by misunderstanding something so simple as the power-weight ratio difference between steam and diesel, then sends them to a shed used by steam locomotives? They were just asking for breakdowns!
Really, who needs Henry VIII?
Couldn't they at least give the no-longer-quite-children one evening to enjoy the results before they start rubbishing them?
I got a D and an E for the 2nd and 3rd, which I knew was rubbish. Re-sat, didn't feel any more or less confident and got B and C. Unfortunately my 5th and 6th exams were also wrongly marked, but re-sitting when you've left school isn't easy, so my grade was less than it should've been [my A-levels are pretty poor, but generally that was deserved. Except in RS].
Yup, that was her. Why does everyone now to seem to have some kind of disorder that makes them unable to work? Is it a consequence of government crackdowns that we now essentially have state of minds categorised as definable diagnosed illnesses? 'Othello Syndrome', because she was jealous. And yes she used an app on an iphone as a lie detector, not as a joke, but as a way to see if her husband was cheating on her.
She was over twenty stone, but as Ive said, twenty stone isnt something that stops you from working. I used to be 22 stone, now im a little more than half that. I havent claimed anything other than a free university education in the 90s.
She was just pathologically lazy, with an army of people fussing around her providing support.
If the Council does anything which you imply above the Supermarket will appeal and will win, and the council will be charged costs.
IMHO BR started to turn the corner before privatisation, at the time of the sectorisation. It was also the time that Thatcher was in power. Whilst some say she hated the railways, the truth seems more that she though of them as being of minor importance, and therefore she let them get on with the job with minimal interference. Which was exactly that they, under the control of excellent managers such as Chris Green and others, needed.
During a paper review on Stephen Nolan show, with Edwina Currie and Austin Mitchell on how the plod have dealt with / are dealing with crime and how they have been placing a huge amount of resources into investigating deceased individuals, the issue of Edward Heath came up. And Nolan (and I paraphrase here) basically said well you know the way he lived his life, the sort of person he was, fits the profile of a peadophile. Currie and Mitchell were totally and utterly godsmacked, and after both said they had met him and stated they didn't think the allegations were true, due to the person he was and the fact he was so in the spotlight. Nolan then linked in the likes of Saville, Harris and Hall as similar people.
Now I have no idea in regards to Heath, but it was the most outrageous thing I had heard for a long time, basically because somebody lived their life in a way you think isn't the norm must equal peado allegations must be true. Now, I wonder what Nolan thought of the way the all papers printed stories about Christopher Jefferies? Or how about the case of William Roache?
Introverts, despite being half the population, sometimes get tarred with a negative brush (not to that extent, but still) due to being quiet and happy in their own company. The idea a man who is single is somehow morally flawed is backward and ridiculous (as an aside, Basil II never got married, and he was amongst the most competent emperors in the entire history of the Roman Empire).
I concur that there's a bigger issue with women, but that's partly down to women. Do you recall the 'Are you beach body ready?' nonsense? There were two photos, one of a lovely blonde lady in a bikini, the other of a shirtless chap. The chap was ridiculously muscled (he should've spent more time reading Edward Gibbon's works, and less time doing situps), and nobody cared. The woman was rather nice, and lots of women seemed to be offended by her presence in the advert.
On a biological level, it's also slightly harder (if memory serves) for women to lose weight.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Urquhart, I think I'm perhaps 5-10 years too old for that to have been an issue for me. Which is lucky, as I had the physique of a POW camp escapee in my teenage years [I could touch my spine through my stomach when I was about 13-14], and I'm not exactly overflowing with lard or muscles today.
Incidentally, as well as vomiting and diarrhoea, another method of bulimia little-known by the general public is excessive exercise.
However, privatisation has undoubtedly improved matters in a number of places - more frequent services in some parts of Wales, for instance, and the impressive Chiltern Trains. It's just been very uneven in quality (anyone remember the notorious Connex franchise?) and rather expensive. Which is a shame.
Not the first daft mark and you wonder what those where the parents lacked the cash or drive to challenge would miss out.
Could the railways have been privatised on a sector basis and still fulfilled EU directive 91/440/EC ? (and yes, I had to look the number up
While I think there has been an increase in the pressure to look a certain way for men, it is nowhere near the pressure for women - nor do all men collectively feel that pressure, in the same way practically all women do. If anything among some men I've dated there's a hypocrisy - and expectation of 'perfection' from me, but not holding themselves to the same standards.
There appears to be this generally bizarre expectation in particular that young woman = perfect body with no flaws whatsoever, which speaking to many my age isn't the case at all.
Can I just point out though that markers are normally paid about £2 per script, have over 200 of them to mark on average, have to fit them around full time teaching jobs (exam boards won't take people out of the classroom for more than 2 years) and are often juggling family life as well? Moreover, from bitter experience it's very difficult to mark 55 papers from the same school that all say essentially the same thing (because only about 3 of them have shown any initiative on their own account) and not lose your temper reading the same thing for the 52nd time at midnight after a full day's teaching and ordinary marking as well.
It's not at all an easy job, and it's often a thankless one. I know that must be less than helpful to those disappointed with their marks though.
The French did it that way, although in their case it was state entities rather than companies.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3190689/Kids-Company-tragedy-waiting-happen-writes-Conservative-MP-DAVID-DAVIES.html#ixzz3iKFPZqtv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Davies lays the present day charities phenom, on the line
Ms. Apocalypse, in the advert example, men just didn't care that a man with a physique well beyond almost all of them was used. Women did care.
And I still don't see why women cared. What was the problem?
This gives him the opportunity to explain they have exaggerated what he said and so he comes across as a very reasonable person - and the media are exposed as being biased in their reporting.
But the media don't seem to know and present the threat of its being taken into public ownership as 'nationalisation'.
EDIT - although I see in the byline they spell it differently.
On the women caring: I guess they felt advert reflects the pressure of women to achieve an 'ideal' body type.
Mind you, it could also be a typo.
I was told I needed to go out more. No thanks.
She wasn't just thin, but a bag of bones and pasty white.
How well has Open Access worked on the French railways under that arrangement? It's working very well over here for freight, and there are several OA passenger operators.
New Thread