NPR

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 3:12 pm I've just checked after seeing the advert and here's one for the knee-jerkers, my 20 year old 2.4l petrol 7 seater meets London ULEZ standards, so no need to pay.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 12:27 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 3:12 pm I've just checked after seeing the advert and here's one for the knee-jerkers, my 20 year old 2.4l petrol 7 seater meets London ULEZ standards, so no need to pay.

Both my 69 year old vehicles are ULEZ compliant

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 12:27 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 3:12 pm I've just checked after seeing the advert and here's one for the knee-jerkers, my 20 year old 2.4l petrol 7 seater meets London ULEZ standards, so no need to pay.

Both my 69 year old vehicles are ULEZ compliant

inactionman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 7:58 pm

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 12:27 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 3:12 pm I've just checked after seeing the advert and here's one for the knee-jerkers, my 20 year old 2.4l petrol 7 seater meets London ULEZ standards, so no need to pay.

Both my 69 year old vehicles are ULEZ compliant

I'm not surprised 2000ish petrol cars are ULEZ compliant, I am a bit surprised that 69 year old vehicles are - In the absence of concessions for vintage cars I can only assume that burning of leaking oil and belting out CO by running ridiculously lean or soot and hydrocarbons by running ridiculously rich aren't actually factored into ULEZ calculations.

Of course, I've no idea what you drive, you could very well be a milkman.

shaggy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:01 am

petej wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:27 am

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 9:37 pm

It was only after I thought about this a bit, that I spotted a question I'd like the inquiry to ask.

The tragedy occured because materials that weren't approved for highrise use, were used; but I can almost guarantee you that the materials that would have been suitable for use on Grenfell, were considerably more costly.

So why would any salesman sell the customer the cheaper version, when they knew the proper one was more expensive, so their commission would have be greater if they sold the correct one ?

There are probably two possible explanations:

1) The Salesman didn't have anything suitable to sell for highrises.
2) The contract was a fixed budget, & he sold them as much as he could to use up the budgetted amount.

If it's 2, then if all comes back on those who specced the refurb, & budgetted for the materials.

3) they used the cheapest material suggested to them by a supplier and don't be surprised if the cost difference between that and something safe is tiny.

If you think things like aircraft and power stations are made of the best materials for the job think again. They are made from the cheapest materials from cheapest suppliers they can get away with and sometimes can't get away with

No industry is different. If it meets the technical specification in a tendering process it simply comes down to lowest cost.

Obviously with building and fire safety in this case the meeting of the tech spec was questionable, but it does not change the outcome of lowest cost wins.

Random1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:23 pm To be fair to the tories, they have tried to change that. The collaborative procurement guidance they produced, for construction projects, a couple of years back was actually good.

Then they’ve also changed the requirement for winning bidders to be the ‘Most Economic Advantageous Tender’ to being the ‘Most Advantageous Tender’. The change was one of the big changes post brexit (MEAT was favoured by the EU).

It’ll take years to filter through, but hopefully a couple of steps in the right direction.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:10 pm

inactionman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 7:58 pm

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 12:27 pm
Both my 69 year old vehicles are ULEZ compliant

I'm not surprised 2000ish petrol cars are ULEZ compliant, I am a bit surprised that 69 year old vehicles are - In the absence of concessions for vintage cars I can only assume that burning of leaking oil and belting out CO by running ridiculously lean or soot and hydrocarbons by running ridiculously rich aren't actually factored into ULEZ calculations.

Of course, I've no idea what you drive, you could very well be a milkman.

All cars pre-1979 are exempt.

Government may have broken law over sewage - watchdog

The UK's environment watchdog suspects the government and regulators have broken the law over how it regulates sewage releases. The Office for Environmental Protection announced its preliminary findings into an investigation on Tuesday.

The regulators and Defra now have two months to provide a response before a final decision is made. Last week a BBC investigation found potentially hundreds of illegal dry sewage spills in England.

In response to the announcement the government said: "The volume of sewage discharged is completely unacceptable. That is why we are the first government in history to take such comprehensive action to tackle it".

But it added: "While we do not agree with the OEP's initial interpretations, which cover points of law spanning over two decades, we will continue to work constructively with the OEP on this issue."

In June 2022 the OEP announced it was investigating whether England's regulators, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, along with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had failed to meet their legal responsibility to monitor water companies' release of sewage and enforce the rules.

Following a year of evidence-gathering by the organisation and its lawyers, on Tuesday it announced that "it had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the authority has failed to comply with environmental law".

The government has come under pressure in recent years over the high levels of sewage discharges into the UK's rivers and seas.

In 2022, water companies in England released sewage for 1.75 million hours - or 825 times a day on average. Releasing sewage into waterways can lead to a build-up of algae which starves local wildlife of oxygen and can produce toxins that are fatal to pets and dangerous to people.

In response to the initial OEP findings an Environment Agency spokesperson said: "We welcome this investigation from the Office for Environmental Protection and we share their ambition to drive improvements in water quality."

Ofwat echoed this and told the BBC: "We welcome the OEP's considerations, particularly on the clarity of responsibilities for the protection of the environment and we will work with them as their investigation moves forward."

The OEP announcement on Tuesday was an "information notice" - a requirement for the regulators to set out whether they agree with the OEP's view that they have not complied with environmental law, and if they agree what action they will take. The OEP will assess this information and likely publish a final decision later this year.

If it is found the law was breached the OEP said it "would be serious" and the first time that the OEP has made such a decision.

The organisation will make recommendations to MPs to take action against the regulators or will apply to the High Court for urgent judicial review.

In practice this means that the Environment Agency or one of the regulators will have to change the way it enforces the law for sewage companies.

tabascoboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 9:18 am Well I'm sure can expect total accountability and acceptance of responsibility for action from this Government as usual [#irony]

Spoiler

Show

Government may have broken law over sewage - watchdog

The UK's environment watchdog suspects the government and regulators have broken the law over how it regulates sewage releases. The Office for Environmental Protection announced its preliminary findings into an investigation on Tuesday.

The regulators and Defra now have two months to provide a response before a final decision is made. Last week a BBC investigation found potentially hundreds of illegal dry sewage spills in England.

In response to the announcement the government said: "The volume of sewage discharged is completely unacceptable. That is why we are the first government in history to take such comprehensive action to tackle it".

But it added: "While we do not agree with the OEP's initial interpretations, which cover points of law spanning over two decades, we will continue to work constructively with the OEP on this issue."

In June 2022 the OEP announced it was investigating whether England's regulators, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, along with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had failed to meet their legal responsibility to monitor water companies' release of sewage and enforce the rules.

Following a year of evidence-gathering by the organisation and its lawyers, on Tuesday it announced that "it had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the authority has failed to comply with environmental law".

The government has come under pressure in recent years over the high levels of sewage discharges into the UK's rivers and seas.

In 2022, water companies in England released sewage for 1.75 million hours - or 825 times a day on average. Releasing sewage into waterways can lead to a build-up of algae which starves local wildlife of oxygen and can produce toxins that are fatal to pets and dangerous to people.

In response to the initial OEP findings an Environment Agency spokesperson said: "We welcome this investigation from the Office for Environmental Protection and we share their ambition to drive improvements in water quality."

Ofwat echoed this and told the BBC: "We welcome the OEP's considerations, particularly on the clarity of responsibilities for the protection of the environment and we will work with them as their investigation moves forward."

The OEP announcement on Tuesday was an "information notice" - a requirement for the regulators to set out whether they agree with the OEP's view that they have not complied with environmental law, and if they agree what action they will take. The OEP will assess this information and likely publish a final decision later this year.

If it is found the law was breached the OEP said it "would be serious" and the first time that the OEP has made such a decision.

The organisation will make recommendations to MPs to take action against the regulators or will apply to the High Court for urgent judicial review.

In practice this means that the Environment Agency or one of the regulators will have to change the way it enforces the law for sewage companies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66778409

tabascoboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 9:18 am Well I'm sure can expect total accountability and acceptance of responsibility for action from this Government as usual [#irony]

Government may have broken law over sewage - watchdog

The UK's environment watchdog suspects the government and regulators have broken the law over how it regulates sewage releases. The Office for Environmental Protection announced its preliminary findings into an investigation on Tuesday.

The regulators and Defra now have two months to provide a response before a final decision is made. Last week a BBC investigation found potentially hundreds of illegal dry sewage spills in England.

In response to the announcement the government said: "The volume of sewage discharged is completely unacceptable. That is why we are the first government in history to take such comprehensive action to tackle it".

But it added: "While we do not agree with the OEP's initial interpretations, which cover points of law spanning over two decades, we will continue to work constructively with the OEP on this issue."

In June 2022 the OEP announced it was investigating whether England's regulators, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, along with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had failed to meet their legal responsibility to monitor water companies' release of sewage and enforce the rules.

Following a year of evidence-gathering by the organisation and its lawyers, on Tuesday it announced that "it had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the authority has failed to comply with environmental law".

The government has come under pressure in recent years over the high levels of sewage discharges into the UK's rivers and seas.

In 2022, water companies in England released sewage for 1.75 million hours - or 825 times a day on average. Releasing sewage into waterways can lead to a build-up of algae which starves local wildlife of oxygen and can produce toxins that are fatal to pets and dangerous to people.

In response to the initial OEP findings an Environment Agency spokesperson said: "We welcome this investigation from the Office for Environmental Protection and we share their ambition to drive improvements in water quality."

Ofwat echoed this and told the BBC: "We welcome the OEP's considerations, particularly on the clarity of responsibilities for the protection of the environment and we will work with them as their investigation moves forward."

The OEP announcement on Tuesday was an "information notice" - a requirement for the regulators to set out whether they agree with the OEP's view that they have not complied with environmental law, and if they agree what action they will take. The OEP will assess this information and likely publish a final decision later this year.

If it is found the law was breached the OEP said it "would be serious" and the first time that the OEP has made such a decision.

The organisation will make recommendations to MPs to take action against the regulators or will apply to the High Court for urgent judicial review.

In practice this means that the Environment Agency or one of the regulators will have to change the way it enforces the law for sewage companies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66778409

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 10:57 am Jeremy Hunt wants to hit the very poorest, so that they can give their voters taxcuts before the next election.


I mean I write this firmly in the knowledge that no-one gives a shit if people on universal credit effectively recieve another 4% cut.

And that Alan sugar (worth more than 2 Billion) is now claiming he is living in Australia, so he can avoid the tax bill (128 million) on his massive profits from last couple of years.

A man who said he would leave the country if Corbyn got elected wants to leave the country to avoid tax on money he probably doesn't care about, could never spend.. and is only something to brag about, down the posh boys club at this point.

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 10:57 am Jeremy Hunt wants to hit the very poorest, so that they can give their voters taxcuts before the next election.


I mean I write this firmly in the knowledge that no-one gives a shit if people on universal credit effectively recieve another 4% cut.

And that Alan sugar (worth more than 2 Billion) is now claiming he is living in Australia, so he can avoid the tax bill (128 million) on his massive profits from last couple of years.

A man who said he would leave the country if Corbyn got elected wants to leave the country to avoid tax on money he probably doesn't care about, could never spend.. and is only something to brag about, down the posh boys club at this point.

shaggy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 2:07 pm One simple question - when Labour refer to ‘working people’ who do they actually mean?

Is this just working class with a fancy wrapper to not offend the non-Labour part of the country?

I find the term just vague.

shaggy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 2:07 pm One simple question - when Labour refer to ‘working people’ who do they actually mean?

Is this just working class with a fancy wrapper to not offend the non-Labour part of the country?

I find the term just vague.

shaggy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 2:07 pm One simple question - when Labour refer to ‘working people’ who do they actually mean?

Is this just working class with a fancy wrapper to not offend the non-Labour part of the country?

I find the term just vague.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:58 pm

Random1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:23 pm To be fair to the tories, they have tried to change that. The collaborative procurement guidance they produced, for construction projects, a couple of years back was actually good.

Then they’ve also changed the requirement for winning bidders to be the ‘Most Economic Advantageous Tender’ to being the ‘Most Advantageous Tender’. The change was one of the big changes post brexit (MEAT was favoured by the EU).

It’ll take years to filter through, but hopefully a couple of steps in the right direction.

Would it be ungenerous to say that MAT while it would allow tenders to succeed by being more environmentally, than one which might be more "Economic", it might also allow a tender that was more expensive, but from a, "preferred vendor", like the Covid VIP lane, to succeed, because a bent council decided to prefer a local friend, rather than the cheapest equivalent ?

The report, which has been seen by the Guardian, says: “The current voter-ID system is, as it stands, a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects.”

The authors found that “polling clerks are more likely to fail to compare a photo ID to the person presenting that document if the person is of a different ethnicity”.

They highlighted the case of Andrea Barrett, who is immunocompromised and was blocked from entering a polling station after refusing to remove her mask for an identification check.

The report says: “Their decision in that instance was … clearly discriminatory (and potentially unlawful) because they denied Andrea Barrett the right to cast a ballot purely on the basis of circumstances which arose as a direct result of a disability.”

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 3:56 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 2:07 pm One simple question - when Labour refer to ‘working people’ who do they actually mean?

Is this just working class with a fancy wrapper to not offend the non-Labour part of the country?

I find the term just vague.

Possibly, but it can also be read as an expansion of their intended audience - they're aiming to talk to all workers not just those perceived to be working class.

The traditional view of the class divide would have the middle class as being better off than the working class, but that's a bit topsy turvy these days. A tradesman generally has much greater earning potential than a teacher or even many low to mid-level office based managers.

People across all sorts of work sectors are seeing their real terms pay continue to stagnate at best and are more acutely aware of wealth inequality. Talking to all working people seems wise.

Random1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:32 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:58 pm

Random1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:23 pm To be fair to the tories, they have tried to change that. The collaborative procurement guidance they produced, for construction projects, a couple of years back was actually good.

Then they’ve also changed the requirement for winning bidders to be the ‘Most Economic Advantageous Tender’ to being the ‘Most Advantageous Tender’. The change was one of the big changes post brexit (MEAT was favoured by the EU).

It’ll take years to filter through, but hopefully a couple of steps in the right direction.

Would it be ungenerous to say that MAT while it would allow tenders to succeed by being more environmentally, than one which might be more "Economic", it might also allow a tender that was more expensive, but from a, "preferred vendor", like the Covid VIP lane, to succeed, because a bent council decided to prefer a local friend, rather than the cheapest equivalent ?

Any procurement process is open to that stuff. The usual one is that they give it to the cheapest, but then the costs balloon

They’re setting up a new procurement regulator to try and keep an eye on things, and all procurements above a certain value must be registered with them.

If I were to wear my optimist hat, I’d say that they’re actually trying to make procurement a big post brexit win.

We’ll likely need to wait a decade or so before we know if it is a success or not though.

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 8:18 pm https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... port-finds

The report, which has been seen by the Guardian, says: “The current voter-ID system is, as it stands, a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects.”

The authors found that “polling clerks are more likely to fail to compare a photo ID to the person presenting that document if the person is of a different ethnicity”.

They highlighted the case of Andrea Barrett, who is immunocompromised and was blocked from entering a polling station after refusing to remove her mask for an identification check.

The report says: “Their decision in that instance was … clearly discriminatory (and potentially unlawful) because they denied Andrea Barrett the right to cast a ballot purely on the basis of circumstances which arose as a direct result of a disability.”

Claude Rains.

Random1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:23 pm

To be fair to the tories, they have tried to change that. The collaborative procurement guidance they produced, for construction projects, a couple of years back was actually good.

Then they’ve also changed the requirement for winning bidders to be the ‘Most Economic Advantageous Tender’ to being the ‘Most Advantageous Tender’. The change was one of the big changes post brexit (MEAT was favoured by the EU).

It’ll take years to filter through, but hopefully a couple of steps in the right direction.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:12 am

Random1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:23 pm

To be fair to the tories, they have tried to change that. The collaborative procurement guidance they produced, for construction projects, a couple of years back was actually good.

Then they’ve also changed the requirement for winning bidders to be the ‘Most Economic Advantageous Tender’ to being the ‘Most Advantageous Tender’. The change was one of the big changes post brexit (MEAT was favoured by the EU).

It’ll take years to filter through, but hopefully a couple of steps in the right direction.

It's essentially gibberish and for a couple of reasons. There was always a failure on the UK side to understand how EU regs were meant to work, which is to say there was often more latitude in how one could interpret them than we allowed, and they were often mystified we refused to allow such and then got cross we had less wriggle room, partly that's down to UK laws operating in somewhat different fashion to much of Europe and no one on our side quite grasped dealing with that.

But even then MEAT doesn't even say you have to go for the cheapest, you can read for MEAT any of the advantages one might claim for MAT

This isn't a Brexit dividend, it's a misunderstanding or an attempt to lie and claim it's some boon derived by our new found freedom

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 12:49 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 8:18 pm https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... port-finds

The report, which has been seen by the Guardian, says: “The current voter-ID system is, as it stands, a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects.”

The authors found that “polling clerks are more likely to fail to compare a photo ID to the person presenting that document if the person is of a different ethnicity”.

They highlighted the case of Andrea Barrett, who is immunocompromised and was blocked from entering a polling station after refusing to remove her mask for an identification check.

The report says: “Their decision in that instance was … clearly discriminatory (and potentially unlawful) because they denied Andrea Barrett the right to cast a ballot purely on the basis of circumstances which arose as a direct result of a disability.”

Claude Rains.

Andrea sounds like she was being a dick and making a dick point. ID needed for voting shouldn't be controversial

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:39 pm We are so screwed next year with a Labour government.

This is just so stupid. There are so many brain dead broadcasts.

This will be our chancellor!

C69 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:36 pm Taliban Tory supporter Ellwood gooone
Fuck off cunt

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:39 pm We are so screwed next year with a Labour government.

This is just so stupid. There are so many brain dead broadcasts.

This will be our chancellor!

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:40 pm The system works well without it, and we're not a society that requires ID, nor one that provides it by default. If we were, there would be a strong argument in favour of it. However, we're not, so instead the minor benefits are massively outweighed by disenfranchising swathes of the most vulnerable parts of the population.

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:43 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:39 pm We are so screwed next year with a Labour government.

This is just so stupid. There are so many brain dead broadcasts.

This will be our chancellor!

.......and you've not been screwed left, right and centre for the last 13 years by the bastards currently in government?

Raggs wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:54 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:40 pm The system works well without it, and we're not a society that requires ID, nor one that provides it by default. If we were, there would be a strong argument in favour of it. However, we're not, so instead the minor benefits are massively outweighed by disenfranchising swathes of the most vulnerable parts of the population.

ID makes it far easier to have a central database, since everyone will have an identifier number etc. Suddenly doctors may be able to get your medical history, without having to run around to each and every hospital/surgery you've ever visited, paramedics could get a relevant medical history swiftly etc. Having lived in a country with national id, and a good central database, it's amazing how much smoother things can be.

TheNatalShark wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:20 pm Achtung regular BA flyers

Why does BA's cabin baggage allowance seem so good compared to the budget airlines? I've not tested its limits and it just seems a bit too good to be true kid of thing. How anal can they be?

"Cabin bag
Up to 56 x 45 x 25cm (22 x 18 x 10in) including wheels and handles
You can travel with a small suitcase, duffel bag or holdall which can weigh up to 23kg (51lb) You must be able to lift your bag into the overhead locker"

Seems like a lot if you don't full a bigger bag to the brim and just squish into 56cm?