Also In The News - part 3

[ClaphamFox]

2 hours ago, Fox92 said:

Yeah, I did think that, especially for the price. I wonder what the guests thought.

A bummer if she finally meets her dream man next week but has already blown her wedding savings getting married to herself. 

[Zear0]

8 hours ago, bovril said:

Norfolk-Suffolk border conkers tournament 'encourages cheating'

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67056611

Just made me think of the Yorkshire Lancashire duel in Phoenix Nights

[Daggers]

4 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Just made me think of the Yorkshire Lancashire duel in Phoenix Nights

https://fb.watch/nDXjl2Es3v/

[Free Falling Foxes]

2 hours ago, Rain King said:

Flight from Nairobi to Heathrow diverted to Stansted. The flight path it took en route is bizarre.

 

 

Strange that. Decided to fly over the eastern part of Ukraine,  where most of the hostility is, and then back through their airspace again for good measure.

I thought flying over Ukraine was avoided by airlines currently?

[bovril]

2 hours ago, Rain King said:

Flight from Nairobi to Heathrow diverted to Stansted. The flight path it took en route is bizarre.

 

 

Source? Seems too unlikely to be real. 

[FoxesDeb]

27 minutes ago, bovril said:

Source? Seems too unlikely to be real. 

That's the route that comes up on Flight Radar when you look up the flight number, it definitely looks strange!

[Rain King]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

Source? Seems too unlikely to be real. 

Flight Radar. Just typed in the flight number. It is the correct one as it said diverted to Stansted.

[Wymsey]

Just Stop Oil change establishment target.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-67093187

 

[bovril]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

That's the route that comes up on Flight Radar when you look up the flight number, it definitely looks strange!

 

33 minutes ago, Rain King said:

Flight Radar. Just typed in the flight number. It is the correct one as it said diverted to Stansted.

Thanks. Very weird

[davieG]

 

By Kevin Peachey
Cost of living correspondent
Large numbers on an entirely redesigned set of UK coins will help children to identify figures and learn to count, The Royal Mint has said.

The coins will enter circulation by the end of the year, marking the new reign of King Charles III and celebrating his love of the natural world.

The tails side of every coin from the 1p to the £2 will feature the country's flora and fauna.

Old coins can still be used, with the new set struck in response to demand.

Rebecca Morgan, director at the Mint, told the BBC: "The large numbers will be very appealing to children who are learning to count and about the use of money.

"Also the animals and everything you see on these coins will appeal to children. They are great conversation starters."

Animals ranging from the red squirrel to the capercaillie grouse are depicted on the new designs. The King's now-familiar portrait will be on the front of each coin - many for the first time.

Although cash use - and especially the popularity of coins - has been in decline in recent years, the Mint says heritage and need mean this change is still required.

"We know a large proportion of the country are still heavily reliant on cash," Ms Morgan said.

"It is also tradition to mark the moment of a monarch coming to the throne with a new set of coinage, so it is important that we carry on that tradition."

[Trumpet]

In regards to the route that flight took - it looks to me (no expert on ADS-B transponders) that they switched their transponder off and took a divert over Russia. The grey lines are the FlightRadar app joining the dots, so not the actual route taken.

 

Odd that they’d flick the transponder on over Russia for half an hour or so.

 

Edit to add - I reckon the data’s been tampered with. The “diversion” entry and exits are too precise and line up, so I don’t think it made its way over to Russia.

Edited 13 October 2023 by Trumpet

[Nalis]

4 hours ago, davieG said:

 

By Kevin Peachey
Cost of living correspondent
Large numbers on an entirely redesigned set of UK coins will help children to identify figures and learn to count, The Royal Mint has said.

The coins will enter circulation by the end of the year, marking the new reign of King Charles III and celebrating his love of the natural world.

The tails side of every coin from the 1p to the £2 will feature the country's flora and fauna.

Old coins can still be used, with the new set struck in response to demand.

Rebecca Morgan, director at the Mint, told the BBC: "The large numbers will be very appealing to children who are learning to count and about the use of money.

"Also the animals and everything you see on these coins will appeal to children. They are great conversation starters."

Animals ranging from the red squirrel to the capercaillie grouse are depicted on the new designs. The King's now-familiar portrait will be on the front of each coin - many for the first time.

Although cash use - and especially the popularity of coins - has been in decline in recent years, the Mint says heritage and need mean this change is still required.

"We know a large proportion of the country are still heavily reliant on cash," Ms Morgan said.

"It is also tradition to mark the moment of a monarch coming to the throne with a new set of coinage, so it is important that we carry on that tradition."

I quite like the look

[Nalis]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67099977

 

S4C boss sacked after alleged abuse of Mike Phillips

 

 

 

Why is it 'alleged' for this scenario? Abuse is abuse.

Edited 13 October 2023 by Nalis

[Livid]

Darren Bradley: Man who killed stranger in Leicester street fight jailed https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-67105588
 

3 years and 2 months seems very light. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

Ok Aussie Foxes, explain the Voice referendum, cos it seems to me that the downtrodden indigenous peoples of your country will remain so.

Edited 14 October 2023 by Trav Le Bleu

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Ok Aussie Foxes, explain the Voice referendum, cos it seems to me that the downtrodden indigenous peoples of your country will remain so.

Yes it’s a shame that it didn’t pass, but I do believe that the vast majority of Aussies have genuine goodwill towards indigenous Australians. Unfortunately the majority weren’t persuaded that this was the solution to problems that they face, many living in what most would regard as 3rd world conditions.

 

The conservative opposition decided to oppose the referendum when they were originally expected to support it. In my opinion Peter Dutton (Guardian described him as Trump without the charisma) saw a way to get back into the political conversation from which they had virtually been excluded since being turfed out of office last year. They waged a very effective campaign based on fear of the unknown, disinformation and division.

 

Meanwhile the government started completely on the wrong foot (again in my opinion) by not being upfront about how the whole thing would work, or at least they seemed unable to spell it out for a huge number of largely apathetic voters who were more concerned with cost of living issues.

 

In the end the “if you don’t know, vote no” slogan won out.

 

Obviously there were many other factors that I’m probably not qualified to review, but including:

 

- Apparent division amongst some indigenous Australians. The No campaign was largely led by two part-indigenous Liberals. Not sure if their opposition was genuinely felt, or more of a career decision, but it was very effective.

- A “progressive” No campaign arguing that the voice was a white man conspiracy.

- Suspicion about how representative of indigenous Australians a Voice body would be.

- Reportedly the usual lies and nonsense circulating on social media about how people would have their homes taken away, have to pay more tax, create a whole new bureaucracy, and much more.

 

Anyway that’s my take and I believe there’s loads more. That’s it for a generation constitutionally I suppose, though there will probably be legislated Voices at both federal and state levels in due course.

[The Horse's Mouth]

Pretty mad how every state voted No, I’d have thought Victoria would’ve edged yes at least. It’s really not surprising though, the yes campaign seemed so ambiguous. 

[Jon the Hat]

I think the yes campaign failed to explain what the Voice would look like, and how it would achieve improved outcomes for First Nations Australians when so many other seemingly well funded programs have failed.  I think it was worth a shot but clearly most didn’t.  
Another point was the belief that all Australians should be equal in the constitution.  
 

[String fellow]

Did anyone get stuck today on the M1? When I drove southbound at about 2.00pm towards the M69 turn-off, the northbound side was one massive car-park, with cars in the outside lane parked partly on the central reservation and their occupants standing around.

[FoyleFox]

13 hours ago, String fellow said:

Did anyone get stuck today on the M1? When I drove southbound at about 2.00pm towards the M69 turn-off, the northbound side was one massive car-park, with cars in the outside lane parked partly on the central reservation and their occupants standing around.

Lorry fire near the services and a serious lorry v motorcycle accident at 21A. 

 

BBC News - M1 reopens southbound in Leicestershire after lorry fire and crash
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-67111271

Edited 15 October 2023 by FoyleFox

[ClaphamFox]

4 hours ago, String fellow said:

Did anyone get stuck today on the M1? When I drove southbound at about 2.00pm towards the M69 turn-off, the northbound side was one massive car-park, with cars in the outside lane parked partly on the central reservation and their occupants standing around.

I drove southbound at 7pm and the queue on the northbound was still huge.

[dsr-burnley]

9 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Yes it’s a shame that it didn’t pass, but I do believe that the vast majority of Aussies have genuine goodwill towards indigenous Australians. Unfortunately the majority weren’t persuaded that this was the solution to problems that they face, many living in what most would regard as 3rd world conditions.

 

The conservative opposition decided to oppose the referendum when they were originally expected to support it. In my opinion Peter Dutton (Guardian described him as Trump without the charisma) saw a way to get back into the political conversation from which they had virtually been excluded since being turfed out of office last year. They waged a very effective campaign based on fear of the unknown, disinformation and division.

 

Meanwhile the government started completely on the wrong foot (again in my opinion) by not being upfront about how the whole thing would work, or at least they seemed unable to spell it out for a huge number of largely apathetic voters who were more concerned with cost of living issues.

 

In the end the “if you don’t know, vote no” slogan won out.

 

Obviously there were many other factors that I’m probably not qualified to review, but including:

 

- Apparent division amongst some indigenous Australians. The No campaign was largely led by two part-indigenous Liberals. Not sure if their opposition was genuinely felt, or more of a career decision, but it was very effective.

- A “progressive” No campaign arguing that the voice was a white man conspiracy.

- Suspicion about how representative of indigenous Australians a Voice body would be.

- Reportedly the usual lies and nonsense circulating on social media about how people would have their homes taken away, have to pay more tax, create a whole new bureaucracy, and much more.

 

Anyway that’s my take and I believe there’s loads more. That’s it for a generation constitutionally I suppose, though there will probably be legislated Voices at both federal and state levels in due course.

Perhaps the Yes campaign ought to have had a similar slogan on the lines of "if you trust the politicians, vote yes".  (Or perhaps that was how it was seen and that;s why they voted no.)

 

Wasn't a large part of the difficulty, that the amendment to the constitution would have set up this body as an advisory body but the government would have had the right to change the law to make it statutory with whatever legal powers they fancied?  A bit like writing the politicians a blank cheque.  I don't supposed aussie politicians are any more trusted than ours.

 

Anyway, they can still set up the advisory body and then have another go at putting in the constitution once people have seen how it works.

[FoyleFox]

9 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

I drove southbound at 7pm and the queue on the northbound was still huge.

Northbound only reopened at 7am this morning. 

[WigstonWanderer]

22 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Perhaps the Yes campaign ought to have had a similar slogan on the lines of "if you trust the politicians, vote yes".  (Or perhaps that was how it was seen and that;s why they voted no.)

 

Wasn't a large part of the difficulty, that the amendment to the constitution would have set up this body as an advisory body but the government would have had the right to change the law to make it statutory with whatever legal powers they fancied?  A bit like writing the politicians a blank cheque.  I don't supposed aussie politicians are any more trusted than ours.

 

Anyway, they can still set up the advisory body and then have another go at putting in the constitution once people have seen how it works.

The government of the day have a blank cheque anyway as long as they have sufficient majority. They can basically do what they like as long as it doesn’t contradict the constitution.
 

My understanding was that the only thing that would have been enshrined in the constitution was “that there would be a Voice and that it would make representations to parliament”. I’m sure it was worded differently, but the idea was that how it was all to work would be decided by parliament (as with any other issues of law) and would have been open to change by future governments. I’m not a lawyer but as far as I know this is consistent with ideas that are embedded in a constitution. They enshrine a set principles rather than details of how everything actually operates.

 

Previous advisory bodies on indigenous affairs had been arbitrarily scrapped in the past, so the Uluṟu request was that the principle should be embedded in the constitution to avoid a similar fate.

 

Nevertheless, by not putting forward more detailed legislation beforehand and then seeking a constitutional change to underpin the legislation, it made them look shifty and voters were wary that they’d be buying a “pig in a poke”. This presented an easy target for a disingenuous opposition (Liberal/National, similar to the Tories in the UK) and was fruitful ground for the inevitable conspiracy theories. I’m pretty sure that Peter Dutton, their leader, was much more interested in striking a blow against the prestige of the Labor PM than anything that might benefit indigenous people.

 

So in summary, I blame the government for bungling he issue. I’m sure they could have handled it better.

Edited 15 October 2023 by WigstonWanderer

[Daggers]

Delighted for my Polish chums today.