I think the number of votes that are gained or lost over Green issues is pretty small. Even in countries with PR, Green parties tend to poll under 10%, and much of their support is based on being left wing, rather than Green.
Anecdotal evidence - at the Real Farming Conference (several hundred people), the only critical question that Gove had was "Have you reconsidered your view on climate change since you removed all references to it from the school curriculum?" That got a huge round of applause despite the generally friendly view of his comments. He was uncharacteristically slow to give a flat denial (initially said he just arranged for the focus to be on the science) but when he did, the audience largely accepted it (though one said it was "an astonishing though welcome urnaround"), and he got strong applause at the end. So it's possible, even with a very green audience, to make progress reven if you're a past sceptic.
I think it's a second order issue for most - not one that decides votes, but one that affects the view of political parties. The Tories are right to think that if they present a greener agenda it will soften to "nasty party" image.They will then hope to win votes on their key arguments (economy, Brexit, whatever) from people who would otherwise feel that voting Tory is not something to be even considered.
It is, however, an issue with an unusually well-informed key audience, so they need to avoid tokenism (hugging huskies and all that) - it would completely undo the progress.
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
What does that mean?
IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.
Isn't this just an extension of the Environmental Stewardship scheme (what I used to know as Country Stewardship)?
I think the difference is that the real money that used to be paid to farmers under the CAP will be diverted to support such schemes but I agree even the CAP had made gestures in this direction.
We originally had it as a separate scheme (CSS) and then were forced to roll it into the CAP (ESE). This is just going back to the old Tory policy...
The fracking argument is quite big news near me in Kirby Mispertton North Yorkshire .It is a very conservative area. I do not know enough about it to make any judgement .Some of the locals are concerned ,do not know if this is just because it is in their area , or a general worry.Also a lot of people are coming from afar to protest everyday.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41864886
Not sure whether I would be more concerned about the Fracking, or the invasion of protestors. The Frackers have a long hard road ahead of them. I introduced a controversial energy process to the UK and it took 10 years or more before the protests died away. I had death threats, and was accused of causing asthma and cancer etc. The process is now established and has saved many millions of tons of fossil fuel.
Thanks Jay , I am no expert but the arguments have a similarity to the genetically modified foods debate in the late ,90s.The invasion of protestors is costing the local police a lot of money.North Yorkshire Police say it is been funded by them , with no extra help from the government.
Miss Cyclefree, in Castle Morris Dancer, coffee is black or white. The proliferation of daft coffee names and varieties is a sign of a corruption and decadence.
Try it; the dirty little secret is that their coffee really is better (especially if you secretly hanker for coffee-flavour milkshakes). The even dirtier secret is that the best coffee shop for coffee if not for posing with your MacBook Pro is McDonalds.
disagree - the best coffee you can get is Dunkin Donuts (although MaccyD is pretty good as well)
I've never really been convinced by the optimism behind climate-change denial. We know that the greenhouse effect is true (just look at uncle Fred's tomatoes). Proving that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect is almost schoolboy stuff. It's obvious that we've pumped loads of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. So the deniers have to rely on some mysterious, almost miraculous, other mechanism that just happens to exists and somehow negates all that. Could we be that lucky?
I think it is undoubtedly true that there are Gaia effects. So more CO2 = more plant growth = less CO2 in the atmosphere. Where there is uncalled for optimism is assuming that these balancing effects don't have limits beyond which the system produces negative effects aggravating the problem. The CO2 trapped beneath the sea in sediments that may become very active if the sea increases modestly in temperature are an obvious example. We don't know where these cliff edges are but that doesn't mean we should not proceed with due caution.
The hysteria in that piece has not aged well. Is there any evidence of the "bonfire of the regulations" apprehended because of the abolition of the DECC? Has there been any drop in the growth of renewable fuel output? Have the policies designed to encourage more efficient boilers and insulation disappeared? Has there been any backsliding on the commitment to eliminate coal from electricity generation?
The answer is no and this government was one of the majority who confirmed their commitment to the Paris accord when Trump indulged in his gesture. This is why I am not convinced by Leo's piece. The answer to charges that global warming is not being taken seriously is yes it is. The commitment to the development of the infrastructure for electric cars is the latest step. Yes, some think it should be done faster but any political movement based on that is going to be pretty short lived.
The Tories nowadays are half-heartedly in favour of positive environmental actions. Many of their MPs are sceptics. Cameron and the coalition were certainly better than the current bunch.
So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.
So should they be exempted from the legal obligation to provide free tap water on demand?
I am not sure what you mean.
I do like in the USA the provision of iced tap water with meals as a matter of routine rather than request, though I deplore their throwaway plates and cutlery found in cheap hotel breakfasts. I prefer reuse rather than recycle.
Personally I cannot understand the fad of bottled water, or drinking coffee from a plasticised cup. As as far as possible I avoid both, on cost grounds as well as environmental. I do enjoy flying abroad though, but we all have our hypocrisies. Single use medical equipment is a bit of a nightmare too, no reuseable forceps and scissors any more, but cannot fight city hall.
If someone needs to pay 25p for a paper cup then they are not able to get free water from a coffee shop. But coffee shops have a legal requirement to provide it on demand.
They don't have a legal obligation to provide it in a form in which it can be taken off the premises though? Just given the customer a glass and require that they don't take it with them.
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
What does that mean?
IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.
Isn't this just an extension of the Environmental Stewardship scheme (what I used to know as Country Stewardship)?
I think the difference is that the real money that used to be paid to farmers under the CAP will be diverted to support such schemes but I agree even the CAP had made gestures in this direction.
We originally had it as a separate scheme (CSS) and then were forced to roll it into the CAP (ESE). This is just going back to the old Tory policy...
We have got a Tory Environment Secretary getting praise from the likes of Nick Palmer. Don't knock it!
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
He was sentenced not to be released unless the parole board were sure he wouldn't reoffend. If he reoffends then its the parole board that have made the mistake.
Sure. Proof of the pudding is iin the eating, and parole boards on a daily basis make these decisions and are very conscious of their responsibilities.
I do hope that he is well monitored by appropriately resourced probation officers. I have my concerns as to how stretched post release supervision is. My only knowledge of this is from a neighbour who is a supervisor of juvenile offenders, and it seems morale and staffing are pretty low there. I would be glad if that was not true of serious sex offenders.
Will taking your own mug to a coffee shop be tax avoidance or tax evasion?
Curiously, that touches on the subject I am going to discuss which is the implications and extent of the Rangers decision by the Supreme Court! I may steal your example!
On topic, I don't quite agree with Leo on two points:
Firstly, climate change denial might not be a significant force but acceptance or tolerance of it in the US - still the world's biggest economy - is still strong enough to see deniers elected to the presidency (and in numbers to Congress). As long as there's no consensus in the US, there's a big gap in any global approach.
And secondly, climate change is yesterday's problem. That's not to ignore it any more than we should ignore the Ozone hole, but the issue that really needs to be got to grips with urgently is oceanic plastic pollution.
So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.
So should they be exempted from the legal obligation to provide free tap water on demand?
I am not sure what you mean.
I do like in the USA the provision of iced tap water with meals as a matter of routine rather than request, though I deplore their throwaway plates and cutlery found in cheap hotel breakfasts. I prefer reuse rather than recycle.
Personally I cannot understand the fad of bottled water, or drinking coffee from a plasticised cup. As as far as possible I avoid both, on cost grounds as well as environmental. I do enjoy flying abroad though, but we all have our hypocrisies. Single use medical equipment is a bit of a nightmare too, no reuseable forceps and scissors any more, but cannot fight city hall.
If someone needs to pay 25p for a paper cup then they are not able to get free water from a coffee shop. But coffee shops have a legal requirement to provide it on demand.
They don't have a legal obligation to provide it in a form in which it can be taken off the premises though? Just given the customer a glass and require that they don't take it with them.
That works for Starbucks, but not for places like EAT that don't have their own cups.
(Fundamentally, 25p is too much relative to the cost of the overall product - by contrast 5p for a bag is a small amount, but sufficient to nudge: it's not the cost, but the question being asked that encourages people to use an alternative).
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
I find it appalling that he has not been prosecuted for offences that have come to light since his conviction. In the early 2000s I was involved in one of Scotland's first cold cases based on DNA analysis which had not been available at the time of the original investigation. The object of the prosecution was to keep Angus Sinclair in prison. He was serving a sentence for a rape but was eligible for parole. He was convicted of the murder rape and sentenced to life. He was subsequently convicted of the World's End murders. He was unquestionably the most evil man I have ever come across.
Why on earth was that not done in this case to keep this man in prison until he dies?
Presumably due to the evidential problem of proving sexual assault to the criminal standard, when the sedated victims were unable to precisely recall what took place.
There was a clear pattern of conduct which would allow the Moorov doctrine to be applied. In those circumstances women saying he had picked them up, offered them champagne, found themselves at home and suffered injuries consistent with a sexual assault would be ample. The media are quite happy to report that he was guilty of 100 rapes. Presumably there is some basis for that statement.
Will taking your own mug to a coffee shop be tax avoidance or tax evasion?
Curiously, that touches on the subject I am going to discuss which is the implications and extent of the Rangers decision by the Supreme Court! I may steal your example!
You're welcome. Certainly when I set out for the coffee shop I'll do do with an element of tax planning in mind.
I've never really been convinced by the optimism behind climate-change denial. We know that the greenhouse effect is true (just look at uncle Fred's tomatoes). Proving that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect is almost schoolboy stuff. It's obvious that we've pumped loads of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. So the deniers have to rely on some mysterious, almost miraculous, other mechanism that just happens to exists and somehow negates all that. Could we be that lucky?
My basic understanding of the position is yes it has an affect but how much? look at what cows release and should we really spend x resources/time/effort which could be spent on valuable project y when we are not even entirely sure how big our impact is, it could be minimal.
And from the slightly crazier end it is all a conspiracy by the Chinese/Indians/Liberals to make the West poorer.
On topic, I don't quite agree with Leo on two points:
Firstly, climate change denial might not be a significant force but acceptance or tolerance of it in the US - still the world's biggest economy - is still strong enough to see deniers elected to the presidency (and in numbers to Congress). As long as there's no consensus in the US, there's a big gap in any global approach.
And secondly, climate change is yesterday's problem. That's not to ignore it any more than we should ignore the Ozone hole, but the issue that really needs to be got to grips with urgently is oceanic plastic pollution.
What we need is a genetically engineered bacterium that will break down plastic but only in the presence of sea water
Why can't we start using reusable cups? When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug with me. People commuting on the train have become used to behaviour that until recently was abnormal - stopping off for an absurdly priced coffee in an environmental nightmare cup.
Behaviours can change. People can start carrying a reusable cup. Or stop and sit. Or pay a tax for the damage.
“ ... When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug ...”
Honestly, what is the contribution to global warming by going out on the road, as compared to the saving by taking your own up cup?
In global warming, the numbers are so big that if we all do a little, then it just adds up to a little. Nothing is going to change if everyone takes their own cup.
Far better to assess whether all these journeys out on the road are actually necessary.
I know - only introduce the 25p charge at coffee shops at motorway service stations or that are drive-throughs, and not at those located on railway stations.
Hold on - the variable isn't me in the car or the commuter on the train - we're doing that anyway and reducing those journeys is a separate issue.
The variable is the paper plastic cup that so many have reasonably recently decided is mandatory for those journeys. But it doesn't have to be. Reuse your cup - they already offer these at the counter - or pay the tax.
And secondly, climate change is yesterday's problem. That's not to ignore it any more than we should ignore the Ozone hole, but the issue that really needs to be got to grips with urgently is oceanic plastic pollution.
A few years back (In the post arab spring window/pre IS terrorism when it was safe to go) I headed to Tunisia. We did a trip to the sahara, one of the worst things I noted from the coach window was the acres and acres of rubbish along the side of the road. Obviously its an issue for all of us but I'd be interested to see the plastic/rubbish split from developed and less developed nations.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I agree, but that was the tariff set at the time 10 years ago, which preceeded the current furore over sexual harrassment. If we have rules then we should follow them, or change them, not have decisions decided by the tabloids.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
And secondly, climate change is yesterday's problem. That's not to ignore it any more than we should ignore the Ozone hole, but the issue that really needs to be got to grips with urgently is oceanic plastic pollution.
A few years back (In the post arab spring window/pre IS terrorism when it was safe to go) I headed to Tunisia. We did a trip to the sahara, one of the worst things I noted from the coach window was the acres and acres of rubbish along the side of the road. Obviously its an issue for all of us but I'd be interested to see the plastic/rubbish split from developed and less developed nations.
I recall being in Jave 25 years ago, with plastic bags everywhere, littering all the rice fields. The locals just chucked them away, like previous generations did with banana leaves for street food.
Gove seems to be garnering yet more positive reviews with his proposals that post 2024 the focus of farming subsidies should be protection and enhancement of the environment.
What does that mean?
IANAE but from what I read farmers will be paid to protect and enhance the environment for wildlife, diversity, flood prevention schemes, access to the countryside etc rather than producing extra milk, grain or beef. In short we will get something back from their efforts which we arguably don't by encouraging production which is readily available in world markets.
Isn't this just an extension of the Environmental Stewardship scheme (what I used to know as Country Stewardship)?
I think the difference is that the real money that used to be paid to farmers under the CAP will be diverted to support such schemes but I agree even the CAP had made gestures in this direction.
We originally had it as a separate scheme (CSS) and then were forced to roll it into the CAP (ESE). This is just going back to the old Tory policy...
We have got a Tory Environment Secretary getting praise from the likes of Nick Palmer. Don't knock it!
Yes, well done Michael Gove, and well done Nick Palmer for being non-partisan in his day job.
The fracking argument is quite big news near me in Kirby Mispertton North Yorkshire .It is a very conservative area. I do not know enough about it to make any judgement .Some of the locals are concerned ,do not know if this is just because it is in their area , or a general worry.Also a lot of people are coming from afar to protest everyday.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41864886
In their 2017 manifesto the Tories said “We will legislate to change planning law for shale applications" and pointed out the benefit the US had got from fracking. The Government also provides much more in subsidies for fossil fuel than renewables. They have a way to go before they are perceived as green.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I knew that, sooner or later, your facade of absolute reasonableness would crack.
What really matters about a cappuccino is the temperature of the milk (not to exceed 65C) and an unbroken gradient between the coffee at the bottom and foam at the top. Far too many are lattes with froth. A small sprinkling of chocolate on top is neither here nor there.
Isn't this just an extension of the Environmental Stewardship scheme (what I used to know as Country Stewardship)?
For those interested in more on this issue (I'm still learning but gradually getting up to speed), there's a very good NIESR report on agriculture and Brexit which is just out:
Note that abolishing pillar 1 support ("Here's £££s to reward you for having a big farm") but boosting pillar 2 ("here's £££s to reward you for providing public good") has potential WTO issues. Editorial summary on this point: the WTO lets you pay farmers the cost of converting to meet your new environmental standards, but it doesn't necessarily let you subsidise farming on top (how the CAP managed to do this without challenge is what NIESR calls "sleight of hand" and the same trick may not work twice), so getting rid of pillar 1 may simply cut farm incomes after 2024 (though also save the Treasury money).
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I knew that, sooner or later, your facade of absolute reasonableness would crack.
What really matters about a cappuccino is the temperature of the milk (not to exceed 65C) and an unbroken gradient between the coffee at the bottom and foam at the top. Far too many are lattes with froth. A small sprinkling of chocolate on top is neither here nor there.
Interesting. I often find heated milk in coffee nauseous. Perhaps it was overheated.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I agree, but that was the tariff set at the time 10 years ago, which preceeded the current furore over sexual harrassment. If we have rules then we should follow them, or change them, not have decisions decided by the tabloids.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
Now we have a doctor around, can I repeat my query from a day back about the evident inability of the majority of doctors and nurses to insert a cannula without inflicting GBH on the patient ?
So how about increasing taxes on gas, electricity, petrol and diesel to encourage people to use less? Any votes there?
That is the conundrum. People back these things in theory, but when it comes to cheap flights, bottled water and disposeable coffee cups, are not interested.
So should they be exempted from the legal obligation to provide free tap water on demand?
I am not sure what you mean.
I do like in the USA the provision of iced tap water with meals as a matter of routine rather than request, though I deplore their throwaway plates and cutlery found in cheap hotel breakfasts. I prefer reuse rather than recycle.
Personally I cannot understand the fad of bottled water, or drinking coffee from a plasticised cup. As as far as possible I avoid both, on cost grounds as well as environmental. I do enjoy flying abroad though, but we all have our hypocrisies. Single use medical equipment is a bit of a nightmare too, no reuseable forceps and scissors any more, but cannot fight city hall.
If someone needs to pay 25p for a paper cup then they are not able to get free water from a coffee shop. But coffee shops have a legal requirement to provide it on demand.
They don't have a legal obligation to provide it in a form in which it can be taken off the premises though? Just given the customer a glass and require that they don't take it with them.
That works for Starbucks, but not for places like EAT that don't have their own cups.
(Fundamentally, 25p is too much relative to the cost of the overall product - by contrast 5p for a bag is a small amount, but sufficient to nudge: it's not the cost, but the question being asked that encourages people to use an alternative).
I'm sure businesses would buy a small stock of cups or glasses if it were necessary for them to do so. And no, I don't think 25p is too much - there's a difference here compared with plastic bags. In that case, the customers have much more say over whether to take bags or not; with plastic cups, it's the providers' actions who the regulations will need to change. Too small a charge (and 5p would be too small a charge) will simply get added on to the price as an effective tax and there'd be too little differentiation between the plastic / sustainable options.
Why can't we start using reusable cups? When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug with me. People commuting on the train have become used to behaviour that until recently was abnormal - stopping off for an absurdly priced coffee in an environmental nightmare cup.
Behaviours can change. People can start carrying a reusable cup. Or stop and sit. Or pay a tax for the damage.
“ ... When I go out on the road and want a coffee I start off taking my travel mug ...”
Honestly, what is the contribution to global warming by going out on the road, as compared to the saving by taking your own up cup?
In global warming, the numbers are so big that if we all do a little, then it just adds up to a little. Nothing is going to change if everyone takes their own cup.
Far better to assess whether all these journeys out on the road are actually necessary.
I know - only introduce the 25p charge at coffee shops at motorway service stations or that are drive-throughs, and not at those located on railway stations.
Hold on - the variable isn't me in the car or the commuter on the train - we're doing that anyway and reducing those journeys is a separate issue.
The variable is the paper plastic cup that so many have reasonably recently decided is mandatory for those journeys. But it doesn't have to be. Reuse your cup - they already offer these at the counter - or pay the tax.
I think the emphasis on re-usable cups is completely misplaced -- far better to have a seriously swingeing tax on petrol/diesel cars and aeroplane journeys. That will be really, really painful, but actually have a real effect.
Worrying about cups is like worrying about an itchy nose when you’ve got a cancerous tumour eating your body away.
The stuff about reusable cups gives the simulacrum of appearing to do something about the issue, while in fact not doing anything at all. Hence, it is very popular with a certain kinds of politicians.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I agree, but that was the tariff set at the time 10 years ago, which preceeded the current furore over sexual harrassment. If we have rules then we should follow them, or change them, not have decisions decided by the tabloids.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
The 2017 parole board have decided he’s no longer a danger to women though; as others have said that’s an incredibly “brave” decision, in very much the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Edit: Guido is going hard on the parole board executives this morning, as well as Starmer and Baroness Scotland, the 2009 Attourney General who made the decision not to appeal the eight year tariff as unduly lenient.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
Oh you puritan you. Just because that is not the way it was done in the old country does not mean it is wrong. Chocolate is a great alternative to sugar in such a coffee. I am going to meet someone for such an "abomination" in 10 minutes.
It’s not just a matter of coffee etiquette. It’s that it tastes disgusting. All these adults paying ludicrous prices for what is, essentially, Ovaltine.
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I knew that, sooner or later, your facade of absolute reasonableness would crack.
What really matters about a cappuccino is the temperature of the milk (not to exceed 65C) and an unbroken gradient between the coffee at the bottom and foam at the top. Far too many are lattes with froth. A small sprinkling of chocolate on top is neither here nor there.
Interesting. I often find heated milk in coffee nauseous. Perhaps it was overheated.
I believe the whey proteins denature, and also react with lactose in complicated ways. In any event, the milk becomes flat and loses its natural sweetness.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
Oh you puritan you. Just because that is not the way it was done in the old country does not mean it is wrong. Chocolate is a great alternative to sugar in such a coffee. I am going to meet someone for such an "abomination" in 10 minutes.
It’s not just a matter of coffee etiquette. It’s that it tastes disgusting. All these adults paying ludicrous prices for what is, essentially, Ovaltine.
On topic, I don't quite agree with Leo on two points:
Firstly, climate change denial might not be a significant force but acceptance or tolerance of it in the US - still the world's biggest economy - is still strong enough to see deniers elected to the presidency (and in numbers to Congress). As long as there's no consensus in the US, there's a big gap in any global approach.
And secondly, climate change is yesterday's problem. That's not to ignore it any more than we should ignore the Ozone hole, but the issue that really needs to be got to grips with urgently is oceanic plastic pollution.
We have climate change deniers elected in this country and other non-MPs with important positions within the Tory party. Even Cameron put Owen Paterson is as an environment secretary, no wonder the Tories don't get much of the youth vote. Climate change isn't yesterday's problem, it's being tackled by some of the world community but it's nowhere near solved.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I agree, but that was the tariff set at the time 10 years ago, which preceeded the current furore over sexual harrassment. If we have rules then we should follow them, or change them, not have decisions decided by the tabloids.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
The 2017 parole board have decided he’s no longer a danger to women though; as others have said that’s an incredibly “brave” decision, in very much the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Edit: Guido is going hard on the parole board executives this morning, as well as Starmer and Baroness Scotland, the 2009 Attourney General who made the decision not to appeal the eight year tariff as unduly lenient.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I agree, but that was the tariff set at the time 10 years ago, which preceeded the current furore over sexual harrassment. If we have rules then we should follow them, or change them, not have decisions decided by the tabloids.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
Now we have a doctor around, can I repeat my query from a day back about the evident inability of the majority of doctors and nurses to insert a cannula without inflicting GBH on the patient ?
My wife is a sister in a busy ward at our local hospital.She agrees with you , because she is good at this procedure is called many time by doctors and nurses to do it.Even with training some never seem to do it correctly, they do not have the knack.
Isn't this just an extension of the Environmental Stewardship scheme (what I used to know as Country Stewardship)?
For those interested in more on this issue (I'm still learning but gradually getting up to speed), there's a very good NIESR report on agriculture and Brexit which is just out:
Note that abolishing pillar 1 support ("Here's £££s to reward you for having a big farm") but boosting pillar 2 ("here's £££s to reward you for providing public good") has potential WTO issues. Editorial summary on this point: the WTO lets you pay farmers the cost of converting to meet your new environmental standards, but it doesn't necessarily let you subsidise farming on top (how the CAP managed to do this without challenge is what NIESR calls "sleight of hand" and the same trick may not work twice), so getting rid of pillar 1 may simply cut farm incomes after 2024 (though also save the Treasury money).
Exactly which brings us back to the price of milk...
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I agree, but that was the tariff set at the time 10 years ago, which preceeded the current furore over sexual harrassment. If we have rules then we should follow them, or change them, not have decisions decided by the tabloids.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
Now we have a doctor around, can I repeat my query from a day back about the evident inability of the majority of doctors and nurses to insert a cannula without inflicting GBH on the patient ?
Poor postgraduate training and supervision, I am afraid. A bugbear of mine, though they tend to have good communication skills training, so apologise well.
Isn't this just an extension of the Environmental Stewardship scheme (what I used to know as Country Stewardship)?
For those interested in more on this issue (I'm still learning but gradually getting up to speed), there's a very good NIESR report on agriculture and Brexit which is just out:
Note that abolishing pillar 1 support ("Here's £££s to reward you for having a big farm") but boosting pillar 2 ("here's £££s to reward you for providing public good") has potential WTO issues. Editorial summary on this point: the WTO lets you pay farmers the cost of converting to meet your new environmental standards, but it doesn't necessarily let you subsidise farming on top (how the CAP managed to do this without challenge is what NIESR calls "sleight of hand" and the same trick may not work twice), so getting rid of pillar 1 may simply cut farm incomes after 2024 (though also save the Treasury money).
Once we leave the EU, will we be able to challenge the EU's CAP as being in breech of WTO rules by oversubsidising agriculture?
I personally don't think I'm a AGW denier, but I remain a sceptic - it is called being a scientist.
Carbon dioxide can and does warm the atmosphere, so do many other factors. To explain an event, you need to understand all the factors, or at least allow for them. We don't as yet, because there are so many. Hysterical chicken-little reactions do not promote understanding. The precautionary principle is not an unreasonable reaction, but that will always balance risk and cost.
It makes sense to move away from fossil fuels but it's important to test your hypothesis on a continual basis. Blind acceptance is not a science, it's a faith. It becomes a science when you can predict.
Science does proceed in steps, it takes blind alleys, and even the best scientists retain 'favourite theories' longer than they should, Usually because they don't strive to test it.
I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs, and the hysterics may eventually be proved correct. It may eventually be all about CO2 levels. I have my doubts. If that makes me a denier, so be it.
On topic, I don't quite agree with Leo on two points:
Firstly, climate change denial might not be a significant force but acceptance or tolerance of it in the US - still the world's biggest economy - is still strong enough to see deniers elected to the presidency (and in numbers to Congress). As long as there's no consensus in the US, there's a big gap in any global approach.
And secondly, climate change is yesterday's problem. That's not to ignore it any more than we should ignore the Ozone hole, but the issue that really needs to be got to grips with urgently is oceanic plastic pollution.
We have climate change deniers elected in this country and other non-MPs with important positions within the Tory party. Even Cameron put Owen Paterson is as an environment secretary, no wonder the Tories don't get much of the youth vote. Climate change isn't yesterday's problem, it's being tackled by some of the world community but it's nowhere near solved.
Yes, but the number who are elected is trivial and their influence small. I was taking a shortcut describing it as yesterday's problem - I agree that there's a lot still to do and focus needs to remain. All the same, it's not the most pressing global environmental problem right now, though because of the internal momentum that these things have, it's likely to remain at the top of the international environmental agenda for some time to come. Hopefully that will change before the ocean's ecosystems collapse.
Miss Cyclefree, in Castle Morris Dancer, coffee is black or white. The proliferation of daft coffee names and varieties is a sign of a corruption and decadence.
Black or white is decadence.
In Brazil there is just thick black - and a glass of water to help wash it down.
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
Miss Cyclefree, in Castle Morris Dancer, coffee is black or white. The proliferation of daft coffee names and varieties is a sign of a corruption and decadence.
Black or white is decadence.
In Brazil there is just thick black - and a glass of water to help wash it down.
And then there's Turkish coffee, which you can't touch for about 10 minutes unless you want a mouthful of sand. Teaches you patience.
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I agree, but that was the tariff set at the time 10 years ago, which preceeded the current furore over sexual harrassment. If we have rules then we should follow them, or change them, not have decisions decided by the tabloids.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
Now we have a doctor around, can I repeat my query from a day back about the evident inability of the majority of doctors and nurses to insert a cannula without inflicting GBH on the patient ?
My wife is a sister in a busy ward at our local hospital.She agrees with you , because she is good at this procedure is called many time by doctors and nurses to do it...
More or less what happened the other day - after a surgical registrar and a couple of ward nurses had left a trail of puncture wounds and bruises...
It would seem to be an essential skill which should be taught.
(Both surgeon and nurses were otherwise excellent.)
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
The average cost of a plastic bag to a retailer is 5p? What school of business did you go to and do you want to buy some plastic bags?
Edit: and as for the cappuccino that is bang on. It is a coffee-flavoured milkshake.
I must say that I'm not at all surprised by the revelation that members of the Conservative Party are right wing and Eurosceptic.
Tim Bale's article is a statement of the bleeding obvious. And it astonishes me that no allowance is made for the well documented fact that people move rightwards as they age.
On topic, I don't quite agree with Leo on two points:
Firstly, climate change denial might not be a significant force but acceptance or tolerance of it in the US - still the world's biggest economy - is still strong enough to see deniers elected to the presidency (and in numbers to Congress). As long as there's no consensus in the US, there's a big gap in any global approach.
And secondly, climate change is yesterday's problem. That's not to ignore it any more than we should ignore the Ozone hole, but the issue that really needs to be got to grips with urgently is oceanic plastic pollution.
Oceanic plastic pollution, the ozone hole, acid rain, manmade climate change ... it's all part of the same thing, isn't it? There is a very real danger that we are destroying the thing we all absolutely depend on: the global environment. I suspect that those who really care about these issues - and I agree with your implicit first point, which is that not too many do - bundle them all together. As they probably should.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I agree, but that was the tariff set at the time 10 years ago, which preceeded the current furore over sexual harrassment. If we have rules then we should follow them, or change them, not have decisions decided by the tabloids.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
The 2017 parole board have decided he’s no longer a danger to women though; as others have said that’s an incredibly “brave” decision, in very much the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Edit: Guido is going hard on the parole board executives this morning, as well as Starmer and Baroness Scotland, the 2009 Attourney General who made the decision not to appeal the eight year tariff as unduly lenient.
Guido is someone who can get hard on politics.
Are there others like this on PB?
I think Starmer especially is seen as fair game because of his current front bench role, undermining him could undermine Labour’s carefully crafted non-position on Brexit.
While the government/Conservatives won’t want to get into publically questioning someone over decisions made when he was a civil servant, the right wing press don’t feel so constrained.
I should imagine anyone lecturing people about "global warming" in the north and east of America right now would get short shrift...
Yes I'm aware climate and weather are different... But I don't think people in Europe realize just how extraordinarily cold it's been over the past few days in the US east and mid-west and there does come a point when the cold temperatures become so extreme and severe that you have to wonder how this is being achieved if we've had like decades and decades of AGW?.
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
The average cost of a plastic bag to a retailer is 5p? What school of business did you go to and do you want to buy some plastic bags?
Edit: and as for the cappuccino that is bang on. It is a coffee-flavoured milkshake.
According to the Scottish Government report on this, that I surprisingly read, the average cost of a carrier bag to retailers is 5p and that's why they chose that charge.
I should imagine anyone lecturing people about "global warming" in the north and east of America right now would get short shrift...
Yes I'm aware clime and weather are different... But I don't think people in Europe realize just how extraordinarily cold it's been over the past few days in the US east and mid-west and there does come a point when the cold temperatures become so extreme and severe that you have to wonder how this is being achieved if we've had like decades and decades of AGW?.
@MTimT told us about the brass monkey weather the other day.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I agree, but that was the tariff set at the time 10 years ago, which preceeded the current furore over sexual harrassment. If we have rules then we should follow them, or change them, not have decisions decided by the tabloids.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
The 2017 parole board have decided he’s no longer a danger to women though; as others have said that’s an incredibly “brave” decision, in very much the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
Edit: Guido is going hard on the parole board executives this morning, as well as Starmer and Baroness Scotland, the 2009 Attourney General who made the decision not to appeal the eight year tariff as unduly lenient.
Guido is someone who can get hard on politics.
Are there others like this on PB?
I think Starmer especially is seen as fair game because of his current front bench role, undermining him could undermine Labour’s carefully crafted non-position on Brexit.
While the government/Conservatives won’t want to get into publically questioning someone over decisions made when he was a civil servant, the right wing press don’t feel so constrained.
I should imagine anyone lecturing people about "global warming" in the north and east of America right now would get short shrift...
Yes I'm aware clime and weather are different... But I don't think people in Europe realize just how extraordinarily cold it's been over the past few days in the US east and mid-west and there does come a point when the cold temperatures become so extreme and severe that you have to wonder how this is being achieved if we've had like decades and decades of AGW?.
Because it used to happen much more frequently. What is now viewed as 'extreme' was at one time a normal winter cold snap.
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
The average cost of a plastic bag to a retailer is 5p? What school of business did you go to and do you want to buy some plastic bags?
Edit: and as for the cappuccino that is bang on. It is a coffee-flavoured milkshake.
According to the Scottish Government report on this, that I surprisingly read, the average cost of a carrier bag to retailers is 5p and that's why they chose that charge.
I personally don't think I'm a AGW denier, but I remain a sceptic - it is called being a scientist.
Carbon dioxide can and does warm the atmosphere, so do many other factors. To explain an event, you need to understand all the factors, or at least allow for them. We don't as yet, because there are so many. Hysterical chicken-little reactions do not promote understanding. The precautionary principle is not an unreasonable reaction, but that will always balance risk and cost.
It makes sense to move away from fossil fuels but it's important to test your hypothesis on a continual basis. Blind acceptance is not a science, it's a faith. It becomes a science when you can predict.
Science does proceed in steps, it takes blind alleys, and even the best scientists retain 'favourite theories' longer than they should, Usually because they don't strive to test it.
I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs, and the hysterics may eventually be proved correct. It may eventually be all about CO2 levels. I have my doubts. If that makes me a denier, so be it.
One word - sunspots.
The sun has an influence on the earth's temperature? Who knew?
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
The average cost of a plastic bag to a retailer is 5p? What school of business did you go to and do you want to buy some plastic bags?
Edit: and as for the cappuccino that is bang on. It is a coffee-flavoured milkshake.
According to the Scottish Government report on this, that I surprisingly read, the average cost of a carrier bag to retailers is 5p and that's why they chose that charge.
Doesn't pass the smell test, though, does it!?
You think they should be cheaper? Don't forget you have to print them. The larger heavy duty plastic bags of the kind you get in clothes shops will cost a fair bit more - probably over 10p while the 20cm thin tie handle bags will be less - perhaps 2.5p per bag. 5p average seems in the ballpark to me.
I should imagine anyone lecturing people about "global warming" in the north and east of America right now would get short shrift...
Yes I'm aware clime and weather are different... But I don't think people in Europe realize just how extraordinarily cold it's been over the past few days in the US east and mid-west and there does come a point when the cold temperatures become so extreme and severe that you have to wonder how this is being achieved if we've had like decades and decades of AGW?.
Because it used to happen much more frequently. What is now viewed as 'extreme' was at one time a normal winter cold snap.
Maybe.... But seeing some places have recorded their coldest temperatures on record (back to 1880) I'm still wondering how this level of cold is "available" in the first place?
And it was only a couple of years ago (2014?) that many of the same places were hit by very extreme cold temperatures before...
I don't know. Something just seems "iffy" about the whole thing to me.
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
The average cost of a plastic bag to a retailer is 5p? What school of business did you go to and do you want to buy some plastic bags?
Edit: and as for the cappuccino that is bang on. It is a coffee-flavoured milkshake.
According to the Scottish Government report on this, that I surprisingly read, the average cost of a carrier bag to retailers is 5p and that's why they chose that charge.
Doesn't pass the smell test, though, does it!?
You think they should be cheaper? Don't forget you have to print them. The larger heavy duty plastic bags of the kind you get in clothes shops will cost a fair bit more - probably over 10p while the 20cm thin tie handle bags will be less - perhaps 2.5p per bag. 5p average seems in the ballpark to me.
The supermarkets are supposed to donate the proceeds to good causes. The ones that did so donated 4p out of the 5p received. So yes I think that they are a great deal cheaper.
I should imagine anyone lecturing people about "global warming" in the north and east of America right now would get short shrift...
Yes I'm aware climate and weather are different... But I don't think people in Europe realize just how extraordinarily cold it's been over the past few days in the US east and mid-west and there does come a point when the cold temperatures become so extreme and severe that you have to wonder how this is being achieved if we've had like decades and decades of AGW?.
Do they expect global warming to give everywhere on earth climate of Benidorm? That may happen eventually, of course, but I suspect life on earth would have become largely extinct by then.
Mr. Eagles, that's one of my favourite episodes, but I think Money (in which Blackadder has to pay back the Black Bank of Saint Herod) might be the best.
Mind you, having said I'm skeptical about AGW I do think it's sensible to de-carbonize... And it's something that will happen anyway through technological advance.
But it needs to happen sensibly... Governments forcing it through taxation so we reach a level where only the very rich can afford to heat their mansions in the winter while the old and poor are left to freeze doesn't help things.
It’s not just a matter of coffee etiquette. It’s that it tastes disgusting. All these adults paying ludicrous prices for what is, essentially, Ovaltine.
De gustibus, etc. Down with taste fascists! If I want to eat pizza with pineapple or cappuccino a la Costa, why shouldn't I? (Yes I know you were joking - but some people take this stuff seriously...)
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
The average cost of a plastic bag to a retailer is 5p? What school of business did you go to and do you want to buy some plastic bags?
Edit: and as for the cappuccino that is bang on. It is a coffee-flavoured milkshake.
According to the Scottish Government report on this, that I surprisingly read, the average cost of a carrier bag to retailers is 5p and that's why they chose that charge.
Doesn't pass the smell test, though, does it!?
You think they should be cheaper? Don't forget you have to print them. The larger heavy duty plastic bags of the kind you get in clothes shops will cost a fair bit more - probably over 10p while the 20cm thin tie handle bags will be less - perhaps 2.5p per bag. 5p average seems in the ballpark to me.
The supermarkets are supposed to donate the proceeds to good causes. The ones that did so donated 4p out of the 5p received. So yes I think that they are a great deal cheaper.
Well. I have learnt something. The 4p out of 5p is simply the deduction of VAT on the 5p charge, ie all funds raised, regardless of costs, are passed on.
Mr. Eagles, that's one of my favourite episodes, but I think Money (in which Blackadder has to pay back the Black Bank of Saint Herod) might be the best.
Beer is my favourite episode simply because a friend of my mother is just like Lady Whiteadder.
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
The average cost of a plastic bag to a retailer is 5p? What school of business did you go to and do you want to buy some plastic bags?
Edit: and as for the cappuccino that is bang on. It is a coffee-flavoured milkshake.
According to the Scottish Government report on this, that I surprisingly read, the average cost of a carrier bag to retailers is 5p and that's why they chose that charge.
Doesn't pass the smell test, though, does it!?
You think they should be cheaper? Don't forget you have to print them. The larger heavy duty plastic bags of the kind you get in clothes shops will cost a fair bit more - probably over 10p while the 20cm thin tie handle bags will be less - perhaps 2.5p per bag. 5p average seems in the ballpark to me.
The supermarkets are supposed to donate the proceeds to good causes. The ones that did so donated 4p out of the 5p received. So yes I think that they are a great deal cheaper.
Well. I have learnt something. The 4p out of 5p is simply the deduction of VAT on the 5p charge, ie all funds raised, regardless of costs, are passed on.
Mind you, having said I'm skeptical about AGW I do think it's sensible to de-carbonize... And it's something that will happen anyway through technological advance.
But it needs to happen sensibly... Governments forcing it through taxation so we reach a level where only the very rich can afford to heat their mansions in the winter while the old and poor are left to freeze doesn't help things.
Surely those too poor to afford heating can move to the West Indies to live? Plenty have moved in the opposite direction.
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
Oh you puritan you. Just because that is not the way it was done in the old country does not mean it is wrong. Chocolate is a great alternative to sugar in such a coffee. I am going to meet someone for such an "abomination" in 10 minutes.
It’s not just a matter of coffee etiquette. It’s that it tastes disgusting. All these adults paying ludicrous prices for what is, essentially, Ovaltine.
I personally don't think I'm a AGW denier, but I remain a sceptic - it is called being a scientist.
Carbon dioxide can and does warm the atmosphere, so do many other factors. To explain an event, you need to understand all the factors, or at least allow for them. We don't as yet, because there are so many. Hysterical chicken-little reactions do not promote understanding. The precautionary principle is not an unreasonable reaction, but that will always balance risk and cost.
It makes sense to move away from fossil fuels but it's important to test your hypothesis on a continual basis. Blind acceptance is not a science, it's a faith. It becomes a science when you can predict.
Science does proceed in steps, it takes blind alleys, and even the best scientists retain 'favourite theories' longer than they should, Usually because they don't strive to test it.
I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs, and the hysterics may eventually be proved correct. It may eventually be all about CO2 levels. I have my doubts. If that makes me a denier, so be it.
One word - sunspots.
The sun has an influence on the earth's temperature? Who knew?
But it's not the only thing that has an influence. In any case, moving away from the use of finite resources controlled by dodgy regimes is a good thing for those reasons alone - though that's not going to be a basis for global agreement.
Mind you, having said I'm skeptical about AGW I do think it's sensible to de-carbonize... And it's something that will happen anyway through technological advance.
But it needs to happen sensibly... Governments forcing it through taxation so we reach a level where only the very rich can afford to heat their mansions in the winter while the old and poor are left to freeze doesn't help things.
To me, it was always sensible to push the line "It seems there is evidence that the Earth's climate is warming. We don't have enough data points to know if this is largely man-made, an entirely natural cycle over which we have no control (there have been recent Ice Ages and warmings for which we were clearly not responsible) - or a combination. We don't even know if the data shows a short-term blip that will self-correct, or a remorseless trend.
HOWEVER, to protect its future generations (and the planet's biodiversity) humanity should take the safety-first approach. We should move towards practical steps that could reduce elements of man-made warming, wherever we can. And urgently."
Perhaps more controversially, I would suggest that climate-change denial has been a reactive response to those who are saying with religious fervour that there is no doubt at all that climate change is man-made. Neither is a helpful response to getting everybody on board to manage a significant threat.
It’s not just a matter of coffee etiquette. It’s that it tastes disgusting. All these adults paying ludicrous prices for what is, essentially, Ovaltine.
De gustibus, etc. Down with taste fascists! If I want to eat pizza with pineapple or cappuccino a la Costa, why shouldn't I? (Yes I know you were joking - but some people take this stuff seriously...)
What's the etiquette about coffee with pineapple? *ducks*
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
It's working with diesel cars.
California has completely banned supermarket carrier bags, which would channel the mind somewhat. I am so absent minded I never remember to bring a bag to the shops, so just pay the charge, which is inconsequential – you could pay it every single day and amass the princely tax of £18 a year, the cost of a middling round in the pub. It is so pitiful a charge I am surprised it has had any effect – yet it would seem that it has!
OT When Worboys reoffends will the parole board apologise to his victim in person ?
Don't blame the parole board, blame the politicians that set the rules that they have to work to*.
He was convicted of 12 offences, sentenced to run concurrently. He may well have done many more, but no evidence was put forward to trial on these for whatever reason. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
*Wasn't it Mrs May in charge of the Home Office 2010-16, setting the rules?
10 years for 12 serious charges is far too low IMO.
What this case shows is that, for all the hysteria around sexual harassment etc, as a society we simply do not treat these offences seriously enough when the perpetrators are caught and punished.
Re coffee cups, personally I would impose a £2.50 tax on anyone buying that abomination - cappuccino with chocolate sprinkles.
I agree, but that was the tariff set at the time 10 years ago, which preceeded the current furore over sexual harrassment. If we have rules then we should follow them, or change them, not have decisions decided by the tabloids.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
Now we have a doctor around, can I repeat my query from a day back about the evident inability of the majority of doctors and nurses to insert a cannula without inflicting GBH on the patient ?
Poor postgraduate training and supervision, I am afraid. A bugbear of mine, though they tend to have good communication skills training, so apologise well.
But how long does that take in the modern NHS? My daughter's department recently spent 3 hours on meetings and paperwork dealing with a complaint that the treating physician looked like a school girl!
I must say that I'm not at all surprised by the revelation that members of the Conservative Party are right wing and Eurosceptic.
Yes, we know that Tory party members are eurosceptic, but the research has clearly found more information than that - the article also talks about more that. E.g. the implications of the views and demographics of Tory members on the party’s political hopes in the future.
‘The question is how the Conservatives will cope when, as seems likely, the proportion of the electorate which share these characteristics begins to shrink. A party's members constitute an important part of its sales force and its public face. They need to be numerous enough, young enough, diverse enough, open-minded enough, and tech-savvy enough, to ensure that it can come up with candidates and a ground campaign capable of appealing to 21st century Great Britain.
None of the countries' parties should be complacent on this score – and all have their quirks: even after the 2017 election, the average Labour member, for instance, is almost certainly more of a well-educated, well-heeled liberal lefty than the average Labour voter.
Yet, as things currently stand, the Tories probably have more to worry about than their main rivals. Whether they can do much to alter the situation and attract a different kind of member in the near future remains to be seen.’
While some of the socially conservative views of Conservative party members aren’t that surprising, that so many of them don’t see anything wrong with the current economic settlement is a bit surprising.
I should imagine anyone lecturing people about "global warming" in the north and east of America right now would get short shrift...
Yes I'm aware clime and weather are different... But I don't think people in Europe realize just how extraordinarily cold it's been over the past few days in the US east and mid-west and there does come a point when the cold temperatures become so extreme and severe that you have to wonder how this is being achieved if we've had like decades and decades of AGW?.
Because it used to happen much more frequently. What is now viewed as 'extreme' was at one time a normal winter cold snap.
Maybe.... But seeing some places have recorded their coldest temperatures on record (back to 1880) I'm still wondering how this level of cold is "available" in the first place?
And it was only a couple of years ago (2014?) that many of the same places were hit by very extreme cold temperatures before...
I don't know. Something just seems "iffy" about the whole thing to me.
I agree it's right not to take global warming science as gospel (predictions made on their models have been consistently poor) but there are any number of factors that have to combine for individual places experiencing exceptional weather, which does make their occurrence fairly random. Global or regional stats are far more reliable.
The important thing for policy to drive change in behaviour is that the alternative is cheaper and more convenient than the behaviour you want to change. If the alternative is convenient for everyone it doesn't matter what cost you impose on the deprecated behaviour. But if it is inconvenient you get a doublewhammy: the behaviour stays the same and consumers resent the arbitrary charge, as they see it. The key to this policy is to make non-disposable cups easy. Maybe cafes need to provide taps next to the sugar and milk dispensers so customers can rinse their personal cups.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
It's working with diesel cars.
California has completely banned supermarket carrier bags, which would channel the mind somewhat. I am so absent minded I never remember to bring a bag to the shops, so just pay the charge, which is inconsequential – you could pay it every single day and amass the princely tax of £18 a year, the cost of a middling round in the pub. It is so pitiful a charge I am surprised it has had any effect – yet it would seem that it has!
No bags is a complete PITA in California. They give you cheap paper ones which break in the car park
Comments
Mr. L, the sanctity of Morris Dancer shall never be tainted by bourgeois coffee.
I do hope that he is well monitored by appropriately resourced probation officers. I have my concerns as to how stretched post release supervision is. My only knowledge of this is from a neighbour who is a supervisor of juvenile offenders, and it seems morale and staffing are pretty low there. I would be glad if that was not true of serious sex offenders.
Laters.
Firstly, climate change denial might not be a significant force but acceptance or tolerance of it in the US - still the world's biggest economy - is still strong enough to see deniers elected to the presidency (and in numbers to Congress). As long as there's no consensus in the US, there's a big gap in any global approach.
And secondly, climate change is yesterday's problem. That's not to ignore it any more than we should ignore the Ozone hole, but the issue that really needs to be got to grips with urgently is oceanic plastic pollution.
(Fundamentally, 25p is too much relative to the cost of the overall product - by contrast 5p for a bag is a small amount, but sufficient to nudge: it's not the cost, but the question being asked that encourages people to use an alternative).
Certainly when I set out for the coffee shop I'll do do with an element of tax planning in mind.
And from the slightly crazier end it is all a conspiracy by the Chinese/Indians/Liberals to make the West poorer.
We'd need toprevent mutations of course.
The variable is the paper plastic cup that so many have reasonably recently decided is mandatory for those journeys. But it doesn't have to be. Reuse your cup - they already offer these at the counter - or pay the tax.
If there is evidence of further offences, then he should be charged. I believe that some of his convictions were for drugging with intent, rather than sexual offences per se.
Interesting article by Tim Bale on his research of party members.
What really matters about a cappuccino is the temperature of the milk (not to exceed 65C) and an unbroken gradient between the coffee at the bottom and foam at the top. Far too many are lattes with froth.
A small sprinkling of chocolate on top is neither here nor there.
https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/agriculture-uk-0#.WSfTJ-srKUk
Note that abolishing pillar 1 support ("Here's £££s to reward you for having a big farm") but boosting pillar 2 ("here's £££s to reward you for providing public good") has potential WTO issues. Editorial summary on this point: the WTO lets you pay farmers the cost of converting to meet your new environmental standards, but it doesn't necessarily let you subsidise farming on top (how the CAP managed to do this without challenge is what NIESR calls "sleight of hand" and the same trick may not work twice), so getting rid of pillar 1 may simply cut farm incomes after 2024 (though also save the Treasury money).
Worrying about cups is like worrying about an itchy nose when you’ve got a cancerous tumour eating your body away.
The stuff about reusable cups gives the simulacrum of appearing to do something about the issue, while in fact not doing anything at all. Hence, it is very popular with a certain kinds of politicians.
Edit: Guido is going hard on the parole board executives this morning, as well as Starmer and Baroness Scotland, the 2009 Attourney General who made the decision not to appeal the eight year tariff as unduly lenient.
Climate change isn't yesterday's problem, it's being tackled by some of the world community but it's nowhere near solved.
Are there others like this on PB?
I personally don't think I'm a AGW denier, but I remain a sceptic - it is called being a scientist.
Carbon dioxide can and does warm the atmosphere, so do many other factors. To explain an event, you need to understand all the factors, or at least allow for them. We don't as yet, because there are so many. Hysterical chicken-little reactions do not promote understanding. The precautionary principle is not an unreasonable reaction, but that will always balance risk and cost.
It makes sense to move away from fossil fuels but it's important to test your hypothesis on a continual basis. Blind acceptance is not a science, it's a faith. It becomes a science when you can predict.
Science does proceed in steps, it takes blind alleys, and even the best scientists retain 'favourite theories' longer than they should, Usually because they don't strive to test it.
I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs, and the hysterics may eventually be proved correct. It may eventually be all about CO2 levels. I have my doubts. If that makes me a denier, so be it.
Black or white is decadence.
In Brazil there is just thick black - and a glass of water to help wash it down.
The 5p charge for carrier bags was chosen because that's the average cost of a bag to retailers.
The key thing for cappuccini is that you can taste the coffee. It should be coffee with milk and not the other way round.
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/alex-cunningham-shadow-pensions-minister-resigns/
Flat white = L'appartment au lait?
It would seem to be an essential skill which should be taught.
(Both surgeon and nurses were otherwise excellent.)
Edit: and as for the cappuccino that is bang on. It is a coffee-flavoured milkshake.
And it astonishes me that no allowance is made for the well documented fact that people move rightwards as they age.
While the government/Conservatives won’t want to get into publically questioning someone over decisions made when he was a civil servant, the right wing press don’t feel so constrained.
This list of failings doesn’t look good when written down on one page though.
https://order-order.com/2018/01/05/starmers-litany-failure-director-public-prosecutions/
I should imagine anyone lecturing people about "global warming" in the north and east of America right now would get short shrift...
Yes I'm aware climate and weather are different... But I don't think people in Europe realize just how extraordinarily cold it's been over the past few days in the US east and mid-west and there does come a point when the cold temperatures become so extreme and severe that you have to wonder how this is being achieved if we've had like decades and decades of AGW?.
The sun has an influence on the earth's temperature? Who knew?
And it was only a couple of years ago (2014?) that many of the same places were hit by very extreme cold temperatures before...
I don't know. Something just seems "iffy" about the whole thing to me.
But it needs to happen sensibly... Governments forcing it through taxation so we reach a level where only the very rich can afford to heat their mansions in the winter while the old and poor are left to freeze doesn't help things.
https://www.lovemoney.com/news/62133/5p-carrier-bag-plastic-charge-supermarket
She repeatedly called me a wicked child.
Oxford’s a complete dump.
(Let then eat cake too)
HOWEVER, to protect its future generations (and the planet's biodiversity) humanity should take the safety-first approach. We should move towards practical steps that could reduce elements of man-made warming, wherever we can. And urgently."
Perhaps more controversially, I would suggest that climate-change denial has been a reactive response to those who are saying with religious fervour that there is no doubt at all that climate change is man-made. Neither is a helpful response to getting everybody on board to manage a significant threat.
‘The question is how the Conservatives will cope when, as seems likely, the proportion of the electorate which share these characteristics begins to shrink. A party's members constitute an important part of its sales force and its public face. They need to be numerous enough, young enough, diverse enough, open-minded enough, and tech-savvy enough, to ensure that it can come up with candidates and a ground campaign capable of appealing to 21st century Great Britain.
None of the countries' parties should be complacent on this score – and all have their quirks: even after the 2017 election, the average Labour member, for instance, is almost certainly more of a well-educated, well-heeled liberal lefty than the average Labour voter.
Yet, as things currently stand, the Tories probably have more to worry about than their main rivals. Whether they can do much to alter the situation and attract a different kind of member in the near future remains to be seen.’
While some of the socially conservative views of Conservative party members aren’t that surprising, that so many of them don’t see anything wrong with the current economic settlement is a bit surprising.
"Oh, Edmund. Can it be true? That I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?"
https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/948981113581486081