FlyTheNest

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 6:25 pm**

Woo woo woo....well done Dr Roger.

Bet that's one hell of a relief.

Maybe we can put our differences aside and raise a cuppa or whatever to Rog, and Mrs Rog as it must have meant he was away from the family a lot.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 6:33 pm**

You had me there for a moment PF.
Was just googling Barbara Cartland and bricklaying to see a pic. Then I got it. Better late than never.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 6:39 pm**

As someone who took a couple of decades,give or take a few years,to achieve honours level,it was so varied and/or lack of depth I could choose whether BA or BSc. before the Hons and is not actually in anything so Open is applied which confuses people not least because they don't think it possible.I admire anyone that pursues any further than that.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 6:41 pm**

yahyah wrote:You had me there for a moment PF.
Was just googling Barbara Cartland and bricklaying to see a pic. Then I got it. Better late than never.

Better than me. I misread it as Barbara Castle and thought it made perfect sense.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 6:41 pm**

RogerOThornhill wrote:Traingate eh?

Good to see we're focusing on the really important stuff...

Meanwhile I passed my viva this afternoon. Some minor corrections to be completed inside 2 months but that's it. PhD done.

Congratulations!

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 6:45 pm**

Be warned. This one's particularly rubbish...

Watson has handed Corbyn evidence of Drot entryism in the Labour Party today.

Hello Radio 4. Here I come.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 6:47 pm**

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Fitzgerald" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 6:48 pm**

Damn. Missed a trick. Be 4warned. Be 4warned.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 6:51 pm**

JonnyT1234 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:On nomenclature. I like to think of myself as "scum"
Dancing scum, methinks.

Oh yea-ea-eah.
You can dance ...

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 6:53 pm**

tinyclanger2 wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:On nomenclature. I like to think of myself as "scum"
Dancing scum, methinks.
Oh yea-ea-eah.
You can dance ...

Nope. But I can chew gum.

NA

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 7:00 pm**

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... for-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Though May opposed the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, she now has a new mantra: “We will make Brexit a success because people voted for it.”

This is nonsense. If Britain becomes the only European country apart from Russia to exclude itself from the EU single market, it will not succeed economically, regardless of how people vote.

Quite

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 7:01 pm**

... You can jive ...

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 7:05 pm**

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... t-minister" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Based on forecasts – including a Treasury paper on the costs of Brexit which Sturgeon had previously attacked as “overblown” – the Scottish government document said even the least bad option of remaining within the single market as part of the European Economic Area would cut Scottish GDP by at least £1.7bn by 2030.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 7:18 pm**

tinyclanger2 wrote:... You can jive ...

... Having the time of your life ...

Edit: P.S. This animated GIF is a cunning allegory for the state of the Labour Party. If you look closely it even features a train.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 7:23 pm**

Congrats Roger, much admiration for your endeavour, and all round bloody hard work!

I'm so in awe I have just opened a stumpy bottle of French lager to you.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 7:31 pm**

... diggit the ...

: abba.jpg (10.78 KiB) Viewed 13505 times

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 7:35 pm**

I think we should have a referendum on withdrawing from the laws of physics

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 7:37 pm**

Well, this dancing meme is certainly defying the laws of gravity so I'll back you on that.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 7:57 pm**

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/passe ... 05631.html

Oh who's right? Who's wrong? Who's lying? Who's telling the truth? Anyway, isn't it exciting?

The speed at which information is being swapped and copied around. Is it helping? Is it making us more stupid?

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 8:00 pm**

pala wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/passe ... 05631.html

Oh who's right? Who's wrong? Who's lying? Who's telling the truth? Anyway, isn't it exciting?

The speed at which information is being swapped and copied around. Is it helping? Is it making us more stupid?

Probably. Or at least less well-informed. The post-modernists got everyone thinking that all opinions are equal and then we removed peer review from information sources and replaced journalists with professional gossips. And lo. We can't tell anything any more.

Moreover, digital learning appears to be reducing capacity for critical thinking (in the useful sense, as opposed to - er ) see eg: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-te ... line-79127" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (other sources are available)

Have given up to focus on the dancing/triathlon. Or perhaps a dancing triathlon with Rick Astley, Abba and ... ?

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 8:04 pm**

The Nolan Sisters. I'm in the mood...

In other news, it's 50 years ago today that we first saw the Earth from the Moon [for the very first time I neglected to add*] via Luna Orbiter 1.

* Or, er, didn't. Can't even read my own writing. Tut.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 8:05 pm**

As HindleA would put it:

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 8:06 pm**

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 8:06 pm**

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 8:07 pm**

Not sure if this has been post and I've nicked it (if so sorry) worth reminding ourselves what the "Right Wing" actually look and act like.
A death foretold: watch as Priti Patel trashes our proud record on aid
Aditya Chakrabortty

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ld-poverty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 8:14 pm**

Edit: Forgot to cite my source:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/fea ... 01588.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 8:18 pm**

It's a bit weird to think that we've only had the capacity to explore space for less than 60 years. Sputnik 1's Earth orbit was in 1957.

Edit: further grammatical ineptitude.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 8:21 pm**

tinyclanger2 wrote:
pala wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/passe ... 05631.html

Oh who's right? Who's wrong? Who's lying? Who's telling the truth? Anyway, isn't it exciting?

The speed at which information is being swapped and copied around. Is it helping? Is it making us more stupid?
Probably. Or at least less well-informed. The post-modernists got everyone thinking that all opinions are equal and then we removed peer review from information sources and replaced journalists with professional gossips. And lo. We can't tell anything any more.

Moreover, digital learning appears to be reducing capacity for critical thinking (in the useful sense, as opposed to - er ) see eg: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-te ... line-79127" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (other sources are available)

Have given up to focus on the dancing/triathlon. Or perhaps a dancing triathlon with Rick Astley, Abba and ... ?

The Tiller Girls?

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 9:17 pm**

RogerOThornhill wrote:2 examiners - 1 internal, 1 external + chair to keep order.

Cripes.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 9:28 pm**

A re-enactment of the next Labour leadership debate for you there.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 9:30 pm**

It has more dignity than the current one.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 9:33 pm**

"I'll show you ram-packed... take a seat grandad. Proud to be standing up for the ordinary people."

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 9:40 pm**

Deleted due to repeat of joke of similar nature and standard.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 9:42 pm**

Does look like my late lamented grandad,as it happens.
Poor chap he always like larking,and now he's dead.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 9:44 pm**

One last entry before I stop this silly nonsense. This one's for yahyah:

Edit: CJA, is that you?

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 9:48 pm**

JonnyT1234 wrote:One last entry before I stop this silly nonsense. This one's for yahyah:

Edit: CJA, is that you?

I can't run that fast.

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 9:49 pm**

Brilliant, JonnyT1234!

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 9:49 pm**

HindleA wrote:Does look like my late lamented grandad,as it happens.
Poor chap he always like larking,and now he's dead.

I'm not surprised after that. Looks like it bloody well hurt...

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 10:40 pm**

I know we have the separate threads for leadership but this matters to so many here that I thought I'd risk a post

"A key measure, Smith says, would be to rewrite the eligibility rules for PIP, as campaigners have called for, abandoning “rock solid” criteria that don’t reflect the subtlety of people’s conditions, such as whether someone can walk 20 metres. The work capability assessment – the controversial test that determines whether disabled people are “fit to work” – would also be scrapped, and he says he would shift from using private firms to carry out the tests to what he describes as proper assessments in the NHS and social services with a focus on people’s own GPs and specialists. “If you’re being paid by results to get people off benefits, that’s what you’ll do,” he says of the private companies.

This is personal for Smith. His brother has epilepsy and has been receiving employment and support allowance (ESA). “You meet him and you think he’s fine,” he says. “But he finds it so hard to work.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 11:05 pm**

Owen Smith apparently calling Corbyn a "lunatic".

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 11:15 pm**

Alice Mahon - MP for Halifax 1987 to 2005

[youtube]2n6AULyybEc[/youtube]

Wonderful

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 11:16 pm**

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 11:27 pm**

The Guardian endorsed Clegg in 2010, now they've got all their guns a-blazing for Smith...

Hope no one feels duped this time.

Just a thought that enters my head everyday, peeps, no offence x

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 11:32 pm**

Thanks for the space posts JonnyT1234. To think that we progressed so far in the two decades after Sputnik, 59 years ago, yet we've not been back to the moon for 44 years is very frustrating (for this scifi nerd at least)

Posted: **Tue 23 Aug, 2016 11:37 pm**

Here's a political angle to my nerdishness: http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/23/12603 ... l-election

Posted: **Wed 24 Aug, 2016 1:12 am**

SpinningHugo wrote:but under BR we had decades of underinvestment, which led to the system becoming unsafe. For the problems with the old system, see this list of deaths and injuries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... ed_Kingdom" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Someone who knows about these things informs me that the prime reason accidents declined is due to the computerisiation of signalling and train monitoring systems. Using technology that didn't even exist in the 1980s. There were other changes imposed by the health and safety regulators and worked out by operators as well in consultation with the regulators. Over the last 25 years the ability to model things like crowd movements or transport systems with complicated stuff going on all the time has improved massively.

Your "argument", such as it is, is like the twits who try and spin against Labour by whinging that "when Labour ran the country in the dreadful 1970s we didn't have mobile phones like today, aren't Labour crap."

Though HSE being experts, and state employed experts at that, maybe you prefer the Gove view on such bodies.

SpinningHugo wrote: If we know one thing in economics it is this: price subsidies are counterproductive. Whether it is bread, rail travel, or housing. the trains wouldn't empty: they'd just charge the market cost of the service.

We most certainly do not "know price subsidies are counterproductive". It depends on what the purpose of the subsidy is for a start.

Now, I forget which rail company it was that said if government/London Mayoral environmental policies increased demand for rail services by 25% they wouldn't add more rolling stock. They'd increase the ticket price until demand fell sufficiently to fit into the rolling stock they already had. Not a useful approach that, from a running a country point of view.

Transport is an essential service. Which means public transport needs to be managed with a view to benefiting the country as a whole. If those who commute into London by train took to using cars instead it would, as danesclose points out, be a disaster. Therefore public transport into London, to stay with that example, should be run so masses of people can afford to use it. That would benefit the people themselves, the city of London and the businesses and public sector organisations operating in London. Hardly counter-productive unless you're a swivel-eyed "free market is always right!!!11!" kook like the ones whose sock-puppets infest the Guardian these days.

danesclose wrote: How can continental train companies operate much cheaper fares than the UK for comparable services?

For two reasons.

1. Their subsidies are uniformly higher. This is unfair on the poor.

2. they are generally in much larger countries without the problems of building infrastructure that we face in the UK. Much easier to build 100m of railtrack in France than in the UK.
[/quote]

1. Unfair on the poor? Despite making train fares affordable for the less well off, which is precisely the point of the subsidy? What a curious viewpoint. And as usual you make no mention of what "poor" means in this context.

You also really don't get the difference between something publicly owned and operated for the public good and something privately owned and operated for maximum shareholder benefit. Or don't want to get it. Life in ~~Galt~~ Hugo Gulch clearly insulates you from reality a little too much.

Are subsidised prescription drugs via a fixed charge per item also "unfair on the poor?"

2. What? You're making this up as you go along for trolling impact, aren't you. At least I hope you are.

SpinningHugo wrote: As to the latter, fine for me to have the UK state itself compete for the franchises (which was Labour policy in 2015 GE), just so long as it does so on a commercial basis. More the merrier: that is how competition works.

Ah, you're a free-market laissez-faire "competition will make everyhting wonderful" cultist ideologue who for some reason I can't imagine thinks him/herself some kind of social democrat. Or maybe hopes to win people over to your right-wing economics and right-wing politics where we plebs join a party to hand over money, listen to the leader's and MPs pearls of wisdom and follow their orders in exchange for sod all other than having one set of expensive suits in office rather than another set of politically almost identical expensive suits.

You're certainly no Blairite, even Blair was well to the left of you.

SpinningHugo wrote: I am afraid i think those denying the clear evidence are making themselves look a bit silly.

Coming from you that's beyond parody.

Posted: **Wed 24 Aug, 2016 4:45 am**

ephemerid wrote:What an unpleasant place this is today.

But where to go other than the now execrable cif?
Is nowhere decent anymore?
Are there so few who try to stay decent?
I,for one,despair

FlyTheNest

Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016

Re: Tuesday 23rd August 2016