Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
It's going to come out one day that she was using an electric shock collar to keep him moving up and down that drive...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver1 -
Lots of flooding around the villages here in Cambridgeshire. Never even heard of them flooding before. This is the new climate changed world0
-
Who knows if the Gaza explosion thing will ever be definitely solved, but here's another analysis, to be debunked, or not.
0 -
More than 5,000 new homes in flood-risk areas of England have been granted planning permission so far this year, as local authorities try to tackle the housing shortage.https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/22/more-than-5000-homes-in-england-approved-to-be-built-in-flood-zones
Researchers analysing 16,000 planning applications lodged between January and September discovered about 200 had been approved, for a total of 5,283 new homes, in areas where more than 10% of homes were already at significant risk of flooding.
I mean, that's nuts isn't it?0 -
What's the summary for non-Twitter uses?briantrumpet said:Who knows if the Gaza explosion thing will ever be definitely solved, but here's another analysis, to be debunked, or not.
Separately, Israel, who doesn't bomb hospitals, has asked another hospital to evacuate. They did that three times to the one they say they didn't bomb.0 -
briantrumpet said:
Who knows if the Gaza explosion thing will ever be definitely solved, but here's another analysis, to be debunked, or not.
Ummmm, does that sound impartial/non-biased?0 -
No.focuszing723 said:briantrumpet said:Who knows if the Gaza explosion thing will ever be definitely solved, but here's another analysis, to be debunked, or not.
Ummmm, does that sound impartial/non-biased?0 -
TheBigBean said:
What's the summary for non-Twitter uses?briantrumpet said:Who knows if the Gaza explosion thing will ever be definitely solved, but here's another analysis, to be debunked, or not.
Separately, Israel, who doesn't bomb hospitals, has asked another hospital to evacuate. They did that three times to the one they say they didn't bomb.
Decent summary from C4
0 -
The IDF have a history of doctoring evidence, so it comes as no surprise that their voice recording has been digitally altered.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
What's the summary for non-Twitter uses?briantrumpet said:Who knows if the Gaza explosion thing will ever be definitely solved, but here's another analysis, to be debunked, or not.
Separately, Israel, who doesn't bomb hospitals, has asked another hospital to evacuate. They did that three times to the one they say they didn't bomb.
Decent summary from C4
0 -
TheBigBean said:
The IDF have a history of doctoring evidence, so it comes as no surprise that their voice recording has been digitally altered.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
What's the summary for non-Twitter uses?briantrumpet said:Who knows if the Gaza explosion thing will ever be definitely solved, but here's another analysis, to be debunked, or not.
Separately, Israel, who doesn't bomb hospitals, has asked another hospital to evacuate. They did that three times to the one they say they didn't bomb.
Decent summary from C4
I suppose it's also possible that the 'evidence' was supplied to them from another source, and as it fitted their narrative, it wasn't checked for veracity.0 -
They have form for itbriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
The IDF have a history of doctoring evidence, so it comes as no surprise that their voice recording has been digitally altered.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
What's the summary for non-Twitter uses?briantrumpet said:Who knows if the Gaza explosion thing will ever be definitely solved, but here's another analysis, to be debunked, or not.
Separately, Israel, who doesn't bomb hospitals, has asked another hospital to evacuate. They did that three times to the one they say they didn't bomb.
Decent summary from C4
I suppose it's also possible that the 'evidence' was supplied to them from another source, and as it fitted their narrative, it wasn't checked for veracity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Rouzan_al-NajjarIsraeli response
An internal IDF review claimed that al-Najjar was not intentionally targeted.[20]
After initially reporting that an internal review showed that al-Najjar was not intentionally targeted, the IDF released video that purportedly showed al-Najjar admitting to being a human shield, with an IDF spokesman saying "Razan al-Najjar is not the angel of mercy Hamas propaganda is making her out to be."[20] The video that was released misleadingly took a prior interview that al-Najjar gave to a Lebanese television station out of context. She had said "I'm here on the line being a protective human shield saving the injured" and added she was at the protests to "save the wounded at the front lines", however the IDF released video cut out everything past "human shield".[6] The Israeli military was widely criticized for its efforts in manipulating the video, with commentators drawing parallels to past instances of the IDF manipulating or otherwise faking evidence.[6][7] A spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister denied that editing the video was "political manipulation". The edited video was also shared by the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[7] The Israeli ambassador to London, Mark Regev, in a tweet placed the description of her as "medical personnel" in quotation marks and continued that her death was further proof of Hamas' brutality.[21]
Further footage showing an unidentified nurse, her face cannot be seen, was presented as evidence al-Najjar threw a tear-gas canister or smoking grenade,[22] at a distance of some 100 metres from the border was also released by the Israeli army.[20][22] Describing this video as having also been "tightly edited", The New York Times estimated that footage did not appear to have been taken on the day she was killed, stating also that "the canister does not appear to be aimed at anyone."[23] According to Gideon Levy, the video filmed the nurse, perhaps Najjar, from behind as she flings away a smoke grenade which Israeli soldiers had thrown in her direction.[21]
Media commentators described the IDF's release of selectively edited videos against Al-Najjar as part of a "narrative battle".[23] and "a coordinated smear campaign".[7] The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights remarked that the sharing of the fraudulent, Israeli-edited version of the video provoked widespread hate speech and dehumanizing rhetoric to be directed on social media against Palestinian demonstrators in general and Al-Najjar in particular.[9]
B'Tselem's investigation
The investigation conducted by B'Tselem concluded that Israeli soldiers shot al-Najjar deliberately.[24] The group interviewed another paramedic called Rami Abu Jazar, who was at the same protest during which al-Najjar was killed.[5] Jazar told the group that he saw two Israeli soldiers aiming their guns at a group of paramedics, including himself and al-Najjar, "taking a sniper stance". Jazar himself was shot in the knee. No protesters were near the group during the attack, according to him.[5]0 -
Not if you see everything they have to go through in order to satisfy planning requirements. They only allowed when there is insufficient suitable land outside the zones to satisfy the number of houses needed. The headline is technically wrong as all houses are in flood zones, they should be confined to Flood Zone 1 though (annual probability of flooding less than 1:1000. Flood Zone 2 has an annual probability of 1:100 to 1:1000 and Flood Zone 3 is greater than 1:100 annual probability of river flooding or 1:50 of sea flooding. Zone 3 gets split in two with 3b being functional flood plain.focuszing723 said:More than 5,000 new homes in flood-risk areas of England have been granted planning permission so far this year, as local authorities try to tackle the housing shortage.https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/22/more-than-5000-homes-in-england-approved-to-be-built-in-flood-zones
Researchers analysing 16,000 planning applications lodged between January and September discovered about 200 had been approved, for a total of 5,283 new homes, in areas where more than 10% of homes were already at significant risk of flooding.
I mean, that's nuts isn't it?
If working in Zone 2 or worse you need lots of mitigation measures and flood resilience (including BB’s houses on stilts in some bespoke cases and I know of one case where the house is on a system that allows it to rise with the water like a pontoon) I’m pretty sure most of Central London is Zone 2 or 3. New builds also have their drainage designed with allowances for increased rainfall of around 40% to accommodate climate change so hold water back from entering watercourses for longer than it currently would from a greenfield.0 -
I might be trying to be slightly charitable/sceptical of all claims at the moment: I'm not inclined to believe either side, and in these days of t'internet and the extreme partisanship evident on Twitter and the like, sifting out fact from fabrication is a tricky business.
I'd agree that evidence of past deliberate proven fabrications does lead one to be sceptical.0 -
I saw one comment that suggested one part of the IDF assumed they had done, so started putting out misinformation, only to later realise that they had been to hasty and the dodgy 'proof' actually made them more suspicious.TheBigBean said:
The IDF have a history of doctoring evidence, so it comes as no surprise that their voice recording has been digitally altered.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
What's the summary for non-Twitter uses?briantrumpet said:Who knows if the Gaza explosion thing will ever be definitely solved, but here's another analysis, to be debunked, or not.
Separately, Israel, who doesn't bomb hospitals, has asked another hospital to evacuate. They did that three times to the one they say they didn't bomb.
Decent summary from C4
Notwithstanding a large pinch of salt, a cockup is always more likely than a conspiracy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Some terrible takes on today's march in London, from 'both sides', Stephen Pollard's being particularly inflammatory.
Meanwhile, a useful reflection from a Jewish writer... it's one of the unfortunate side-effects of the debate (as exemplified by PE and Baddiel's response) that any criticism of the Israeli government's current response by not-Jewish people is taken as supporting Hamas, however explicit people are that they do not condone Hamas's actions or support it in any way. I'm sure Freedman will get flack, maybe even more so, as being of Jewish descent.
0 -
I am worried by the reaction of Labour councillors resigning. They would do well to consider that the truth of a dispute does not always lie half way between the two sides.
Implicit support of a barbaric terrorist attack does them no credit.1 -
Not everyone has that luxury when buying houses though - the floody ones tend to be a lot cheaper and if its a choice between leaving the area you grew up in or moving miles from your family etc you can see why some people find that a difficult one.Pross said:
Still struggling with the relevance of that to buying a house with a flood history but I'm sure Rick will appreciate the demographic blindness reference. Are you saying non-male, non-professionals don't understand the concept of a house that floods not being a good thing? Was there anything in the original post by W&G that suggested the people have bought the house in question were of a different demographic?First.Aspect said:
This forum suffers from demographic blindness.Pross said:
I'm not sure who this large group are that have little choice but to buy a house that has flooded several times in the last decade. As I say, if you were living there before it became a frequent occurence it is different.First.Aspect said:
There's another large group of people who don't have that much choice. Please let's not get into another round of empathy block and tutting at all the foolish little people.Pross said:
If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.rick_chasey said:
I think this is the wrong approach.pblakeney said:
And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.wallace_and_gromit said:
You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!pblakeney said:"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.
With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.
We need proper investment in flood defences.
Most people on here seem to be male, professional, middle aged and affluent.
Most other people aren't.
If you have the finances to buy a house it is probably better to buy one that hasn't flooded several times in the previous few years. Buying one that does because it is affordable would appear to be a false economy.
It might not be the choice between "this house in my home town is slightly more affordable than this other one in my home town" it might be a choice between "buy this house on the flood plain or up sticks and move away". Now as someone who's moved around a lot for work that wouldn't especially bother me but for a large proportion of people, staying close to "home" is important.
They should stop building houses on the flood plain without adequate protection though. I grew up in Portishead and there are thousands and thousands of new houses there on an area that is just a flodd plain and that I remember flooding. I think possibly more of a storm surge risk than rain but i do remember it flooding. The top of the High Street used to be a tidal mill...0 -
Just read about a Japanese bus drivers strike.
Only rather than not driving the buses, they just gave the same service to everyone only they didn’t make anyone pay for the tickets.
Quality0 -
Next stop autonomous buses.0
-
Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
0 -
At times it just feels like another topic that people use to signal their political beliefs.
This has ended up with a lot of left wing progressive types, seemingly supporting Islamists.1 -
my enemies enemy is my friend.Jezyboy said:At times it just feels like another topic that people use to signal their political beliefs.
This has ended up with a lot of left wing progressive types, seemingly supporting Islamists.0 -
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake0 -
Despite how the media like to portray things no-one is building in floodplain these days without protection and mitigation measures. In order to be allowed to develop a site in either Zone 2 or Zone 3 a developer must first undertake a sequential test to demonstrate that there aren't sufficient suitable sites in Flood Zone 1 in the area. Any housing in Flood Zone 3a is then only permitted once an exception test is carried out that has to demonstrate the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. Only water compatible development and essential infrastructure (that has passed the exception test) is permitted in Flood Zone 3b (functional flood zone).bobmcstuff said:Pross said:
Still struggling with the relevance of that to buying a house with a flood history but I'm sure Rick will appreciate the demographic blindness reference. Are you saying non-male, non-professionals don't understand the concept of a house that floods not being a good thing? Was there anything in the original post by W&G that suggested the people have bought the house in question were of a different demographic?First.Aspect said:
This forum suffers from demographic blindness.Pross said:
I'm not sure who this large group are that have little choice but to buy a house that has flooded several times in the last decade. As I say, if you were living there before it became a frequent occurence it is different.First.Aspect said:
There's another large group of people who don't have that much choice. Please let's not get into another round of empathy block and tutting at all the foolish little people.Pross said:
If someone buys a place knowing it has flooded several times in the last decade and no flood defence work has been introduced then it is hard to find sympathy. If someone has been there years and is unable to sell then it's a different situation.rick_chasey said:
I think this is the wrong approach.pblakeney said:
And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.wallace_and_gromit said:
You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!pblakeney said:"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.
With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.
We need proper investment in flood defences.
Most people on here seem to be male, professional, middle aged and affluent.
Most other people aren't.
If you have the finances to buy a house it is probably better to buy one that hasn't flooded several times in the previous few years. Buying one that does because it is affordable would appear to be a false economy.
They should stop building houses on the flood plain without adequate protection though. I grew up in Portishead and there are thousands and thousands of new houses there on an area that is just a flodd plain and that I remember flooding. I think possibly more of a storm surge risk than rain but i do remember it flooding. The top of the High Street used to be a tidal mill...
For all developments (other than those under 1 hectare in Flood Zone 1) a Flood Risk Assessment is needed to demonstrate that identifies and assesses the risks of all forms of flooding to and from the development and demonstrate how these flood risks will be managed so that the development remains safe throughout its lifetime, taking climate change into account. This includes demonstrating that the development won't create a negative impact elsewhere e.g. that introducing flood defences won't increase the risk of flooding to properties upstream or downstream. FRAs become more complex for the higher risk areas. I've worked on a couple in Flood Zone 3 and they are hundreds of pages covering things such as evacuation plans, flood resilience, how the site will compensate any lost flood plain storage. A drainage strategy will also be needed for all sites to demonstrate how surface water from the site entering the existing drainage systems will be restricted to no greater than the greenfield runoff would have been (and also needs to include an allowance of 40% on existing rainfall amounts to accommodate climate change). There is a heirachy of how the site should drain with the priority being for it to infiltrate into the ground, where that is not viable it should connect to an existing watercourse with measures to attenuate flow to those Greenfield rates and only if it can be demonstrated that this in not viable can you connect to a sewer system (again with rates attenuated to Greenfield levels).
With regards to the housing in Portishead (which I know fairly well as one of the housing developers I used to do work for have their offices there!), it is shown on the flood map below as defended Flood Zone 3 and most of the new housing is actually in Flood Zone 1, presumably due to the flood defences and mitigation measures that were brought in as part of the development.
Sorry for the lengthy post but I get a bit irked by the common perception that developers just pick a site they like the look of and simply apply to get planning permission then (maybe with a few brown envelopes) build their houses. These sites take years before they get built and there are loads of hoops to jump through. Take a look at the planning portal for one of those Portishead sites for example, there are 3 pages of various applications and the original outline application has over 280 documents associated with it. Some of the Reserved Matters applications cover the drainage and flooding issues https://planning.n-somerset.gov.uk/online-applications/pagedSearchResults.do?action=page&searchCriteria.page=20 -
surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
Are you saying that they should be consistent in condemning the side that has taken land from the other ?
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
The conflict in Ukraine is generally reported on in a much simpler way.surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
Imo far too much attention is spent on whether to call Hamas terrorists or not. Just report in detail what they have done, because much of it sounds genuinely horrifying.
Obviously that doesn't mean you can starve hundreds of thousands though.
0 -
I'd hope they didn't report Russia Ukraine in the same way, as they're very different.surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
UK reporting on israel/gaza, to my young eye (am not old enough to know back in the 70s and 80s) seems closer to coverage of Northern Ireland, albeit with more graphic footage.0 -
In general it's pretty hard to discuss it without someone accusing you of taking sides.
Which is super frustrating.0 -
I thought the USA, EU and UK have designated Hamas as a terrorist organisation, if so then not referring to them as such just seems bloody mindedDeVlaeminck said:surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
Are you saying that they should be consistent in condemning the side that has taken land from the other ?0 -
but why don't they report why Russia considers itself to have a claim on various lands?Jezyboy said:
The conflict in Ukraine is generally reported on in a much simpler way.surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
Imo far too much attention is spent on whether to call Hamas terrorists or not. Just report in detail what they have done, because much of it sounds genuinely horrifying.
Obviously that doesn't mean you can starve hundreds of thousands though.
why do they take it at face value that Russia is the aggressor?
for clarity my point with the above is why don'tthe BBC feel the need to give the same impartial coverage when reporting on Russia?1
