Cardelia

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A) I very much doubt Corbyn would betray his > principles, much as I'm sure the right, having > seen their own leader totally kick the idea of any > principle beyond staying in power into touch, > would like to think all others would do the same, What is Corbyn's principled viewpoint on Trident? And what's in the Labour manifesto? What is Corbyn's principled viewpoint on Brexit? Which side did he campaign for? I was really impressed with Corbyn's campaigning despite disagreeing with a large number of his proposals. But the idea that he won't betray his principles in order to get into power is wrong. Corbyn finally seems to have accepted that in order to act upon his principles, firstly he needs to be in a position of power to do so. And if he has to pledge to keep Trident in order to get into power, despite wanting to scrap the whole thing, then that's what he'll do. Even if it is through gritted teeth and with his fingers crossed.

Sodium disilicate is a thickening agent which is used to get the product to the right consistency. It probably won't do anything for removing stains. Sodium percarbonate is a mixture of sodium carbonate and hydrogen peroxide. The peroxide will be the bleaching/stain removing agent and the sodium carbonate is there to help stabilise the peroxide to give the product a longer shelf life. It's possible that a stronger peroxide solution will do the trick of removing the stain, but I'm not sure that the 6% stuff you can buy over the counter in a chemist will be any stronger than the stain devil, so you may as well try that a second time.

Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm afraid that when the law says should it means > that this is what needs to be done. What "should" > be done, in fact. When it means you can use your > discretion it says "may" > The Highway Code is not law. It's a book of best practice. Occasionally, where it refers to actual law, it uses the words MUST and MUST NOT, and it provides a reference to the actual law(s) in question. Anything else in the HC is guidance. In this case, rule 240 uses MUST NOT and it lists the areas where parking is specifically prohibited by law. Rule 243, which contains the bit about not parking within 10 metres of a junction, uses DO NOT, hence it is guidance and not law. It is not a specific offence to park within 10 metres of a junction.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apologies - I stated that a little lacking in > definition - of course they pay tax if they earn > over the tax allowance; that doesn't mean that > they are being paid a fair amount. The > differential between the starting salary for a PC > & Fireman & nurse is strange given the importance > & stress attached to all these activities. UK > governments have had a policy of promoting a group > of workers that are in low paid employment & this > creates the gaps in overall income tax > contributions between different percentiles of the > population. Top 20% paid six times more than the > bottom 10% - not a pleasant picture of a fair > society. I was trying not to comment on the 'fairness' aspect because it's all pretty subjective depending on what your definition of 'fair' actually is. I think pretty much everyone recognises that those who earn more should pay more, but where does the balance lie? Some would argue that the top 20% paying 6 times more income tax than the bottom 10% is a reflection of a fair tax collection system where those who can afford to pay more are actually paying more. A lot more. > Everybody is eminently replaceable in the economic > sense - It will follow that if the replacements > are working for less then the services will move > to equilibrium in time due to competition and will > become cheaper & less of a cost to the economy - > ergo a benefit in the economic mix. I don't understand why this is a good thing. If a company is providing a service and it is providing it well because of the performance of highly paid individual(s), then replacing those individuals with cheaper workers of lesser ability will mean that the company is providing a worse service. Sure it'll be a cheaper service, but the work won't be as good. How does that benefit the economy?

I agree that, in the grand scheme of things, diesel is one small part of the whole air pollution issue. And I certainly don't think that the Government which promoted diesel had anything other than best intentions in mind. I suppose my point is that we should be careful about the unintended consequences of trying to change people's behaviour because we didn't *have* to go down the diesel route in the first place. NOx is more than just NO2. There are many different oxides of nitrogen and they all have negative effects on the body. The physiological effects of NOx exposure (upper respiratory tract irritation, formation of nitrous/nitric acids etc. etc.) have been documented for absolutely ages. The issue has been trying to pin down how much of these negative health effects have been directly caused by NOx and not the other pollutants which are commonly found with NOx. Recent studies have helped in this regard, but the basic premise that NOx is actually quite nasty is not a new one.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is an indictment of the low pay policy > promoted by the tory parties whereby a huge > phlanx of the population don't even get enough to > pay their way - this even applies to nurses, > police & firemen who provide essential services. > If these people earned sufficient basic pay then > they would begin to pay tax. The starting salary for a registered nurse is ?21,692 which is well above the ?11,500 personal income tax allowance. Even if you consider healthcare assistants as nurses, their starting salary is ?15,100 so they also pay income tax. The starting salary for a police constable is ?19,383. They pay income tax. The starting salary for a trainee firefighter is ?22,017. They pay income tax. > The richer people and high paid must regard their > taxation to be an opportunity cost. If they > dislike it they can always go elsewhere - their > jobs will be taken up by plenty of available > people who will probably do a better job & for > less. If the hypothetical replacements for the rich are being paid less to do the same job, it stands to reason that they're going to be paying less tax. Therefore the country will receive less revenue. That doesn't seem like a desirable outcome to me.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK time for some myth busting. > > Government did not say "go out and buy diesel" > they incentivised low carbon cars to help save the > planet. People (including me) bought diesels > because they were fuel efficient, low-end torque, > less stressed, reliable etc. There are other > relatively low carbon cars - the Fiat 500 (petrol) > is an ace city car. Yet even with that model Fiat > had to extend it (in size) and bring in diesel > variants. At the time, low CO2 emissions were synonymous with diesel because there were virtually no low-CO2 petrol/LPG/hybrid cars around. So it's a bit disingenuous to say that the Government weren't promoting diesel. They were, just not explicitly. Additionally, the negative health effects of NOx and carbon particulates have been known about for decades. The government of the time decided that CO2 was a more pressing problem to solve than air quality. They were mistaken. If they'd listened to proper scientific advice at the time then they may not have been so keen on saving the planet at the expense of people's health. > Then came along the common rail injection system > and wow, you'd have to put a label on telling that > it was a diesel or you may fill it with petrol. Don't underestimate the effect of improved turbocharger technology. How many normally aspirated diesel engines do you see nowadays? > The auto industry for doing the least they have to > do in terms of meeting standards, not promoting > environmentally friendly vehicles (or greenwash > using 'eco' inappropriately, and promoting fast > and sexy vehicles? Noting that the auto industry > has been seen as a great British economic success > in recent times and emplys tens of thousands - > being out of a job is not good for your health. I think you're being a bit unfair here. Technology advances don't grow on trees, it takes an enormous sum of money and time to get a new engine from a concept to commercial product. Look at how Honda have struggled in F1 with the new hybrid engines: that energy-recovery tech is going to be in road going cars within a decade or two, which is why Honda are keen on making it work in F1, but it's so hideously complicated to get the energy efficiency of an ICE up to state-of-the-art in F1 that even a company with a multi-billion dollar R&D division can't get it to work. For commercial cars we've long passed the point of an easy fix to clean up emissions so the next advances will be in energy-recovery systems. Thermoelectrics are still a long way off, unfortunately. > Or us for our obsession with speed and power, > driving two tonne vehicles with one person in it > badly and at times unecessarily. Most modern cars are significantly lighter than 2 tonnes. Most volume manufacturers don't advertise on the basis of power and speed anymore. And most people prioritise practicalities like boot space, fuel economy, road tax etc. over power and speed when buying a car.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come back when you have an informed view and we > can have a proper debate. For example when our > rail engineering was the most advanced in the > world, under the state, in the 1970s, electricity > generation, telecomms and no doubt more. All sold > off for a quick buck and votes for the Tories who > promted greed and selfishness. Intercity 125s were introduced in 1976 and had a top speed of, well, 125 mph. Or 200 km/h in metric. We were beaten to the 200 km/h mark by the Americans who commercialised 200 km/h in 1967, the French (also 1967) and the Japanese (1964). So we were a long way from the "most advanced in the world" in the 1970s.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "How will labour buy back all the companies that > were privatised?" > > The rail network is all publicly owned. The > private companies operate as concessionaires for a > time limited period. As I understand it, Corbyn is > just proposing to let the franchises expire and > then not re-tender it. What about the rolling stock? That's all privately owned.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I gladly withdraw my claim of 20-30% and replace > it with 18-29%, depending on which pollutant is > being measured. Did you actually read the primary literature? Figure 2.4? It clearly shows that the Greenpeace interpretation is incorrect. Come on, this is basic comprehension. Primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources, any GCSE student knows that. > I think there's some confusion in the report to > which you linked: it says that 40% of London's > particulate matter pollution comes from diesel > vehicles, but attributes only 1% of this to > private cars. Given that there are somewhere > close to a million diesel cars in London, does > that seem likely to you? There may be a million private diesel cars in London but how many miles are actually driven per day by private cars? Not that many because people just use them to commute to work and back. In contrast, buses are driven 18 hours a day (24 hours a day for night routes) and a lot of taxis are always on the move looking for fares. Delivery vans (diesel, of course) are driving round for 10-12 hours a day, plus there are all the coaches coming in and out of Victoria, not to mention the open-top tourist buses which are all constantly on the move. Most of those sources of emissions are also much more polluting than cars because their engines are bigger and they're heavier so cause more brake wear when they stop. So yes, take all those things into consideration and it's easy to see why private cars cause so little pollution in comparison to other sources. > I'll take your apology for implying I was lying re > distances as read, shall I? I edited that bit out because my post was too long and I wanted to concentrate on the IPPR report. But since you asked: The reason I picked the station was because I didn't know what you meant by "Peckham". I just chose a fairly central landmark from which to base my distances on, that's all. If you'd specified the library then I'd have used that. I wasn't accusing you of lying, I was accusing you of being vague and inaccurate. You initially said 3.7 miles from Peckham to Westminster Bridge northside, then revised it to 3.56 miles. What happened to the extra 225 metres?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Any reference for this data?" > > Unlike for your assertions, yep. > http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/11/03/causes > -londons-air-pollution/ Ok, follow the links back to the primary source, here: http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/lethal-and-illegal-solving-londons-air-pollution-crisis-Nov2016.pdf?noredirect=1 Figure 2.3: in central London, cars (diesel and petrol combined) are responsible for a mere 8% of NOx pollution. Not "20-30%". Expand it to the whole of greater London then the figure rises to 18%. Still not "20-30%". Also note that "cars" includes private hire vehicles (minicabs, Uber etc., but not licensed taxis which are separate) so private cars are responsible for even less NOx than those figures imply. Figure 2.4: when it comes to PM emissions I think you've misinterpreted the Greenpeace summary you linked to because cars contribute nowhere near "20-30%". In central London cars (diesel and petrol combined) are responsible for 3% of all PM10 emissions and in greater London it's just 2%. Same caveat as above applies to minicabs etc. It's an interesting report. The biggest reductions in pollution from road transport can be made by switching buses to hybrids, phasing out diesel taxis in favour of hybrids/electric vehicles and finding a way of reducing the number of HGVs on the roads. Reducing the number of private cars is only of marginal benefit. That doesn't mean we should ignore the contribution made by private cars, but I would argue that when it comes to spending public money on improving air quality, the focus should be on the areas where the biggest gains can be made. In this case, buses and taxis. > "I don't mind restricting cars if you can prove > that there will be a net positive effect which > will outweigh the negatives." > > The negatives being your "right" to drive where > and when you want? I wouldn't be so rude to call > you a nutjob, but your posts on this thread and on > others show that you are demonstrably very, very > pro-car and very anti any restrictions on > motorists. That's fine, you're entitled to be, > but then be who you are instead of demanding that > everyone with a contrary point of view to your own > produce evidence whilst offering none yourself as > if you're merely some disinterested unbiased > seeker for truth. I'm in favour of expanding the ULEZ to the north/south circular. In fact, you could propose to do it tomorrow and I would still be in favour, even though my car is old enough to be caught up in the regulation. I wouldn't care if you brought back the western extension to the CCZ and I don't mind if double yellow lines are slapped all over East Dulwich's junctions to improve sightlines for pedestrians. All of these will negatively affect me but because it has been shown that there are positive benefits for everyone then I'm in favour of them. So that's three anti-car policies I'm in favour of, would you now care to show where I've "squealed with indignation" at the thought of restricting car usage?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You've clearly not tried driving from Wimbledon to > Streatham in the rush hour. It's a distance of > 4.2 miles, Peckham to Westminster Bridge northside > is 3.7. The roads from Wimbledon to Streatham are > just as congested, if not more so, than Peckham to > Westminster - I know this from personal experience > and saying "that's just not true" doesn't actually > change that. One of my favourite ever sayings is "the plural of anecdote is not data". I've no reason to doubt your experience, what I would question is how representative your experience actually is. For example, Peckham Rye Station to Westminster Bridge northside is actually 4.2 miles. And it's interesting that because your experiences are different to mine, you've automatically assumed that I've never driven from Wimbledon to Streatham in rush hour. > Cars are responsible for between 20%-30% of > London's pollution (depending on type of pollution > measured), diesel buses about 16%. These are > things we (i.e. the GLA) can control, unlike > sources such as aircraft pollution, factory > pollutants blown from elsewhere. Any reference for this data? > I know you and other car lovers squeal with > indignation at the thought of curbs on their use - > you might like to consider that pollutant levels > inside your car are around 2.5 times those > outside, so, with piquant irony, while you're > poisoning the city you're actually poisoning > yourself even more. Thanks, that's useful to know, next time I get in the car I'll open the windows. On a more serious note, if you can point to anywhere I've "squealed with indignation" at the thought of restricting car usage then go right ahead. I don't mind restricting cars if you can prove that there will be a net positive effect which will outweigh the negatives. But asking for evidence before I support a policy doesn't make me some kind of rabid pro-car nutjob, it just makes me a rational person.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cardelia Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rendelharris Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Is there any evidence that at 30MPH you'd be > > > avoiding red lights? Surely you'd just be > > > arriving at the next red light more quickly > > > > Surely you'd arrive at the next *traffic* light > > more quickly. How do you know it's going to be > > red? > > And how do you know it's going to be green? > Traffic lights in 20MPH zones are phased for 20MPH > driving, so the smoothest flow through them will > be at the posted speed limit. I don't know that it's going to be green. But then I'm not the one making the assertion that at 30 mph you just get to the next red light more quickly when compared to 20 mph. How do you know that traffic lights are phased for 20 mph driving in a 20 mph zone? Different roads will have different optimal traffic flows. Factors such as capacity, popularity, the number of side roads, bus stops, pedestrian crossings etc. will all affect the average traffic speed of a road, and this will determine how lights are phased. Traffic engineers have hideously complicated models which calculate the optimal traffic flow for whole areas, not just a single road, so there is no one size fits all approach.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there any evidence that at 30MPH you'd be > avoiding red lights? Surely you'd just be > arriving at the next red light more quickly Surely you'd arrive at the next *traffic* light more quickly. How do you know it's going to be red?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Focus needs to be on all car use in all of London, > not just in the CCZ - the person who commutes by > car from Wimbledon to Streatham causes just as > much pollution as someone commuting from Peckham > to Westminster. That's not true. Not true at all. The person who commutes from Peckham to Westminster is driving into a highly congested part of town with the result that they will spend more time idling in traffic. Their journey time will be longer and they're causing pollution whilst not going anywhere. The person commuting from Wimbledon to Streatham will be spending more time in moving traffic, meaning the journey time will be quicker and they're polluting less. Assuming both commuters are driving an identical vehicle, obviously. Surely the focus needs to be on reducing pollution? If that means reducing the number of cars then fine, but lets at least see some proof that cars are the main cause of London's pollution problem before we set out to restrict them. Evidence-based policy please, not ideological dogma.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PS please show me the proof that govenment > actively promoted diesel vehicles? I'd love to see > the Cabinet papers. There was a small tax > incentive, which was aimed at reducing carbon not > promoting diesel. We bought them as they were > reliable, incredibly efficient, great low end > torque, better resale value etc. If you want to > have a pop at government then there should have > been better info to buyers of the pros and cons - > long motorway journeys diesel, around town petrol > (and alternative fuels) Fiat produce probably the > best city car - the 500, but even with this USP > they had to diversify the range to bring in diesel > variants and larger models. Dave's goverment > didn't like telling us what was good for us. TM > will just do the popular thing to win votes and > not disenfranchise the motorists. I'll put money > on that. Oh and they should limit the road > building programme - but again this is a vote > winner Erm, "a small tax incentive" is exactly the kind of promotion a Government would use when it wants to change the behaviour of its citizens. I think you know as well as I do that the pigheaded focus on reducing CO2 emissions led to the then Government being blinded to the alternative harm caused by diesel, but lets not pretend that the public weren't incentivised to buy diesel over petrol. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/01/uk-government-wrong-to-subsidise-diesel-says-former-minister http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/motoring-news/labours-drive-towards-diesel-cars-causing-massive-public-health-problem-admits-shadow-environment-10000843.html Even now, with VED being calculated on the basis of CO2 emissions and not taking into account other forms of pollution, there is still a Government-promoted incentive to buy diesel.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're correct that few private vehicles drive > into the congestion zone, but that doesn't affect > Vauxhall Bridge where people are running through > town and up towards Edgware and west towards > Chelsea. The westward extension which Boris > scrapped so as not to upset the Tory voters of > Kensington would have helped enormously. The western extension to the CCZ would have made very little difference to the traffic flow on Vauxhall Bridge. As you correctly point out, most private cars using Vauxhall Bridge are through traffic, heading to/from the M4, M40, M1 and A1. They use the west cross route/Embankment, or Park Lane/Vauxhall Bridge Road, because these are major traffic arteries through west London. These routes were/are entirely exempt from the CCZ because of their huge importance in maintaining traffic flow. > The solution to London's pollution and congestion > problems is not to make it easier for motor > vehicles to use the roads. The only feasible > solution is to make it so awkward, time consuming > and expensive to use a motor vehicle in central > London that people stop doing so (alongside > improvements in public transport and, yes, cycle > provision). Many people will hate this > suggestion, which is up to them. I hate that > around 10,000 elderly and ill Londoners die > prematurely each year due to air pollution, that > children living near busy roads grow up with lung > capacities 10% smaller than average and that over > 2,000 people are killed or seriously injured on > London's roads each year. How many of those 2000 people are KSId by private cars, as opposed to buses, delivery trucks, construction vehicles, taxis etc. which will still need to use London's roads even if you were to entirely ban the private car? How much of that air pollution is caused by private cars, as opposed to diesel buses, diesel trucks, diesel lorries, diesel taxis etc. which will still need to use London's roads even if you were to entirely ban the private car? You talk about making it even more awkward, time-consuming and expensive to use a private car. How easy do you think it is now? The only time I drive in London is when I'm leaving London to go somewhere else, where public transport is expensive, time-consuming and awkward to use. Fix that and I'd give up my car.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aaaaargh! Although, to be honest, I don't know how > much is to do with the strikes and how much with > sheer incompetence. To me it all started going > downhill around December 2014, with 'improvement' > works at London Bridge. The key issue is not the > strikes, but the fact that service is awful even > when there are no strikes! Are so many Southern > employees pulling in sickies? Did Southern fail to > hire enough staff? Are workers simply refusing to > work overtime, ie did Southern rely too much on > overtime? My understanding is that it's a bit of both. The London Bridge works are massively disruptive and have had a really detrimental effect on the timetable, especially for ED which is one of the very few stations with no alternative London terminus. They're scheduled to finish next year though. Train operating companies have always relied on worker overtime in order to fill the rota. All of them do it. In part this was driven by the RMT/ASLEF which realised that its members could hoover up all the lucrative overtime and make a small fortune for sitting around on 'cover' shifts. Plus it would increase the powerbase of the union. In return, the employment costs for the TOCs were lower and they get to run a full service so in theory everybody wins. But when industrial disputes happen, such as the door issue, the RMT/ASLEF can withhold overtime and the TOC is stuck because it doesn't have enough staff on hand to fill the rota. It seems that Southern were woefully underprepared for the union action and had no contingency plans in place (sheer incompetence on Southern's behalf) but equally, the door issue was forced on them by Government policy and the unions could try a lot harder to find a workable solution to the problem, rather than maintaining archaic working practices for the sole benefit of their members' bank balances.

One thing you may wish to consider is that the next South West Trains franchise will almost certainly be affected by RMT strikes concerning driver-operated doors. Currently SWT have guards who open the doors but these roles will be changed in line with Government policy regarding the modernization of the railways. So there will be a lot of disruption in the next few years.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It also seems to me that it is weighted against > teams such as DHFC (further down the pyramid), > with the replays being only a couple of days later > and players possibly unable to get time off work > at such short notice. Why aren't the replays > scheduled for the following week (same thing with > Braintree)? Anyone with better in depth knowledge? In non-league football cup replays have always been scheduled for the same week of the original tie. The Trophy has been like this for as long as I can remember (25 years or so), likewise the FA Vase. Don't forget that the FA Cup only changes to 10 day replays when the FL teams enter in round 1: all the preliminary and qualifying rounds have replays in the same week of the original tie. The reason is to do with minimising disruption to the fixture list. Getting ties concluded asap means that future postponements are kept to a minimum.

Southern services through East Dulwich are already DOO and they have been for years. Same with the SouthEastern metro services that run through Denmark Hill, Peckham etc. The 8/12-car long-distance Southern services to Brighton are not DOO. However, the 8/12-car Thameslink services - which operate on exactly the same bit of track and stop at exactly the same stations* - are DOO. I'm not aware of any research which shows that Thameslink trains are more dangerous than the equivalent Southern trains on this route. The safety argument is a smokescreen by the RMT/ASLEF because they don't want to lose their position of power over the train operating companies. * from East Croydon to Brighton

John Barnett have expanded a little out back and they're taking the opportunity to have a complete refit of the main store as well. The plan is to reopen in 4 weeks, but obviously this depends on the builders sticking to the schedule.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 5-2. Wembley a mere two games away. Three games. The semi-finals (if you get past Macclesfield) are two-legged affairs.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To the best of my knowledge carbonated sugar is > not a thing. A liquid can be carbonated when > gasses are dissolved in it under pressure. Sugar > is also dissolved in liquid. The main sugar in > many fizzy drinks in fructose. However, the sugar > itself is not carbonated. Interestingly though, > carbonation may affect how we consume and > metabolize sugar. Just as a side note, it is possible to carbonate sugars i.e. form sugar-based compounds which have a carbonate functional group attached. However this is getting into the deeper realms of organic chemistry so is merely of academic interest because carbonated sugars are not an ingredient in fizzy drinks.

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All businesses have to move with the times but it > feels like death by a thousand cuts from a > customer perspective. That said I'll probably > still keep using them for long haul as they > command most of the prime routes anywhere from > UK. Right there, that's why BA will continue the 'death by a thousand cuts' approach. As long as people will use them regardless, they know they can keep cutting costs. For most people the price of the ticket is what determines which airline they choose. In order for BA to compete on price against the low cost carriers they had to cut out a lot of the 'premium' offerings which used to distinguish them from the LCCs. It's a reflection of the times we live in: for short-haul travel the number of people willing to pay extra money for a better quality of product is no longer enough to sustain a viable airline. Loz: BA cabin crew on the newer Mixed Fleet contracts are nowhere near twice the amount paid by the LCCs. Staff turnover is incredibly high on these contracts because most crew realise they can get a better wage elsewhere.