In article <f07oahhctqq6r5sm5calhk8t8qjgsbdual@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:33:30 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:

> [...]
> >At 18, I tended to side with him (it's a great story, after all, to be
> >able to tell the workers that they'll be better off in some alternative
> > reality).

> Yes, that's how religions do it; the good old "jam tomorrow" argument.
> Sometimes it can be more persuasive than it has any right to be.

I didn't realise that BloJo was so religious! 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:19:51 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <jh10q9Fe0clU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
><jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
>> socialism is a religion.
>
>
>..for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton "Neo
>liberalism", etc.
>
>Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why, for
>example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after WW2.
>Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had been
>though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions like the
>housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable overall for
>the population to make a more stable and good place to live.
>
>Alas, as time passed the predictable 'tribal' effects returned and the rich
>got back to doing what suited them as the poor got back to what seemed to
>them the best responses when the rich had most of the power.
>

That's only your opinion.

--
brightside S9

In article <xn0nj7x5m2576qe007@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/06/2022 in message <59f95f5b79noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
> wrote:

> >>As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is
> >>exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to
> >>understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.
> >
> >The snag being that in reality an asserted 'opinion' or 'view' may be
> >vacuous nonsense. i.e. not true.

> That is incorrect and your inability to understand it is what has cause
> this diversion, an opinion is just that and you can certainly disagree
> with it but opinions cannot be wrong.

Your inability to understand that: when a 'view' about reality conflicts
with mere reality, then that view is false is an interested meta-error. :-)

> I said I would stop posting on the subject as it's annoying the group so
> I'll leave you to research "opinion" and "view", it may help stop you
> making a twat of yourself again, who knows!

Mirror, mirror... 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <t8i5vc$nv6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> The problem is your lack of understanding that you lost an argument
> through the views or opinions that you expressed in it being shown to
> depart from reality, and until you realise this you are just wasting our
> time.

....and his own. :-) It would be wise for him to stop digging, but the
conditional on that statement seems to return 'false'. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <i8mrah19csdh93l40ib52sil60o9sr6g6j@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9
<reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:19:51 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:

> >In article <jh10q9Fe0clU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> ><jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
> >> socialism is a religion.
> >
> >
> >..for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton
> >"Neo liberalism", etc.
> >
> >Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why,
> >for example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after
> >WW2. Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had
> >been though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions
> >like the housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable
> >overall for the population to make a more stable and good place to live.
> >
> >Alas, as time passed the predictable 'tribal' effects returned and the
> >rich got back to doing what suited them as the poor got back to what
> >seemed to them the best responses when the rich had most of the power.
> >

> That's only your opinion.

Supported by mere facts. :-)

I'd recommend reading the book "The Five Giants" on these topics. Most
illuminating in terms of the results of various politicians/etc over many
decades wrt Health Service, Education, Housing, etc, and the things the
politicians said and did.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 18/06/2022 15:18, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>> That's only your opinion.
>
> Supported by mere facts. :-)
>
> I'd recommend reading the book "The Five Giants" on these topics. Most
> illuminating in terms of the results of various politicians/etc over many
> decades wrt Health Service, Education, Housing, etc, and the things the
> politicians said and did.
>
> Jim
>

The authors of books can select facts and figures and put a slant on things.

Bill

On 17/06/2022 10:19 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
>> socialism is a religion.
>
> ..for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton "Neo
> liberalism", etc.
>
> Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why, for
> example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after WW2.
> Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had been
> though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions like the
> housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable overall for
> the population to make a more stable and good place to live.

Building council houses probably looked good to all parties in the
immediate post-war era.

The eventual socially-corrosive and gerrymandering effects of carpeting
local authority territory with it would not have been so apparent. It
became properly evident only in the 1960s and (especially) the 1970s.
For several decades, whole cities were effectively unavailable for
owner-occupied new building. The only property for sale being in
established inter-war (or earlier) suburbs and in inner-city terraced
houses which were gradually being swept away as rented housing.

Improvements to education?

Don't make me laugh.

The 1944 Education Act, passed by a coalition government (in which the
Deputy Prime Minister was the Leader of the Labour Party), provided, on
a non-partisan basis, the post-war system of secondary education:
grammar schools, technical high schools and modern secondary schools
(inexplicably termed "secondary modern", as though we were speaking
French or something). It also provided the opportunity to any pupil to
compete for a place at a grammar school or THS.

Labour decided to renege on the non-partisan spirit of that Act during
the 1960s, and to start the wrecking of the grammar schools and the few
THSs which had been established. They weren't prepared to listen to
anyone else's POV on that. It was a religion for them, and still is.

> Alas, as time passed the predictable 'tribal' effects returned and the rich
> got back to doing what suited them as the poor got back to what seemed to
> them the best responses when the rich had most of the power.

Do you still have to recite that three times every morning and three
times every evening?

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 14:50:19 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/06/2022 10:19 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> > JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
> >> socialism is a religion.
> >
> > ..for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton "Neo
> > liberalism", etc.
> >
> > Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why, for
> > example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after WW2.
> > Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had been
> > though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions like the
> > housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable overall for
> > the population to make a more stable and good place to live.
> Building council houses probably looked good to all parties in the
> immediate post-war era.

During the war there had been little construction (men were conscripted), poor maintenance and wholesale destruction by the Luftwaffe (~2M homes destroyed and many more damaged).

Rehousing those made homeless by enemy action was considered a state responsibility, AFAIK by all parties.

SNIP

On 20/06/2022 12:27 pm, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>>> It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
>>>> socialism is a religion.
>
>>> ..for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton "Neo
>>> liberalism", etc.
>
>>> Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why, for
>>> example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after WW2.
>>> Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had been
>>> though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions like the
>>> housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable overall for
>>> the population to make a more stable and good place to live.
>
>> Building council houses probably looked good to all parties in the
>> immediate post-war era.
>
> During the war there had been little construction (men were conscripted), poor maintenance and wholesale destruction by the Luftwaffe (~2M homes destroyed and many more damaged).
> Rehousing those made homeless by enemy action was considered a state responsibility, AFAIK by all parties.

No problem with that.

In Liverpool (a place about which I can be reasonably geographically
authoritative), no significant for-sale building took place until the
1970s. There was a little infill, here and there, plus one new estate on
the very edge of the city's rural boundary (dwarfed by the massive
council estate built nearby).

On 20/06/2022 12:27, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> During the war there had been little construction (men were conscripted), poor maintenance and wholesale destruction by the Luftwaffe (~2M homes destroyed and many more damaged).
>
> Rehousing those made homeless by enemy action was considered a state responsibility, AFAIK by all parties.

I have seen it written that post-war town planners did a lot more damage
than the Germans, knocking down buildings that could have been repaired
and replacing with very ugly structures.

In article <jh8hltFmdbdU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 18/06/2022 15:18, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> >> That's only your opinion.
> >
> > Supported by mere facts. :-)
> >
> > I'd recommend reading the book "The Five Giants" on these topics. Most
> > illuminating in terms of the results of various politicians/etc over
> > many decades wrt Health Service, Education, Housing, etc, and the
> > things the politicians said and did.
> >
> > Jim
> >

> The authors of books can select facts and figures and put a slant on
> things.

So can people who don't write books. :-)

However to find out about the book's content, the best way to make your
*own* mind about it is to read it. Some of the info may suprise a few.

e.g. the Government that did the most in terms of 'social' housebuilding
was Macmillan's Conservative one. Not Labour.

I appreciate, though, that some people avoid reading any book that may
contain facts that clash with what they want to believe. Then say the book
- whose content they don't know - is a 'religion'. i.e. make up an excuse.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jh8nspFneinU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> The eventual socially-corrosive and gerrymandering effects of carpeting
> local authority territory with it would not have been so apparent.

Ah, you mean as per Dame Shirly and her mates shoving all the social
housing into one ward to gerrymander Westminster for the Tories. Thus
putting many tenants into unsafe accomodation.

Yes, some politicians can find a way to exploit almost anything. Not really
an excuse for never doing anything that does help those who need it,
though. Particularly when they're in need because of existing explotation,
and circumstances beyond their control.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 20/06/2022 13:02, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> e.g. the Government that did the most in terms of 'social' housebuilding
> was Macmillan's Conservative one. Not Labour.

An example of wider circumstances over riding party dogma.

By the way I know a man who, as a youth, accidentally covered Supermac
in soot. The old boy just shook the soot off his Times and carried on
reading...

Bill

On 20/06/2022 01:02 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>>> That's only your opinion.
>
>>> Supported by mere facts. :-)
>>> I'd recommend reading the book "The Five Giants" on these topics. Most
>>> illuminating in terms of the results of various politicians/etc over
>>> many decades wrt Health Service, Education, Housing, etc, and the
>>> things the politicians said and did.
>
>> The authors of books can select facts and figures and put a slant on
>> things.
>
> So can people who don't write books. :-)
> However to find out about the book's content, the best way to make your
> *own* mind about it is to read it. Some of the info may suprise a few.
> e.g. the Government that did the most in terms of 'social' housebuilding
> was Macmillan's Conservative one. Not Labour.

Probably true, but at least partly because Labour were in government for
six years 1945-1951 (part of which was during or in the immediate
aftermath of war) and the Conservatives, under Churchill, Eden,
MacMillan and Douglas-Home, were in government for more than twice as
long as Labour had been (thirteen years 1951-1964).

By the second half of the 1950s, Britain had recovered a lot from war
and by the sixties, the changes were palpable - "Swinging London", etc.

That should not be taken as support for the Labour Party. It isn't that.
Just a statement of obvious facts.
>
> I appreciate, though, that some people avoid reading any book that may
> contain facts that clash with what they want to believe. Then say the book
> - whose content they don't know - is a 'religion'. i.e. make up an excuse.

Labour Party politics was not then a religion. The party's leaders
tended to be sensible, down-to-earth, people.

But over the last fourteen-fifteen years, the Labour Party has been a
different animal.

On 21/06/2022 13:26, JNugent wrote:
> Labour Party politics was not then a religion. The party's leaders
> tended to be sensible, down-to-earth, people.
>
> But over the last fourteen-fifteen years, the Labour Party has been a
> different animal.

Two great British institutions that have gone bad: The Labour Party and
the BBC.

Bill

In article <t8qbqs$rkd$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> I have seen it written that post-war town planners did a lot more damage
> than the Germans, knocking down buildings that could have been repaired
> and replacing with very ugly structures.

That may well have been true in some cases. However the house I was brought
up in until about 10 years old was one of a set of similar houses that were
best dealt with by demolition and replacement. I wasn't aware they were
'slums' at the time, but looking back, yes they were.

Outside loos with no lights and only accessible via an outside door, not
from the house. Coal celler under the stairs, resting on the bare ground.
My bedroom got a pile of snow along the *inside* of the window when it
snowed outside. When it rained I saw the damp patches on the ceiling caused
by the leaks in the sagging roof of the terrace. etc.

The shame was that people weren't them moved to new housing *as a
community* but were scattered around the borough. Thus losing a lot of
friendly community contacts and support.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jhdrn8FieatU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Labour Party politics was not then a religion. The party's leaders
> tended to be sensible, down-to-earth, people.

> But over the last fourteen-fifteen years, the Labour Party has been a
> different animal.

Bit like the Tories then, who have become the puppets of kleptocracy and
other 'rich mates'. To the point where BloJo has to fly to Ukraine to find
an audience that doesn't boo him!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jhdupqFiscuU2@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 21/06/2022 13:26, JNugent wrote:
> > Labour Party politics was not then a religion. The party's leaders
> > tended to be sensible, down-to-earth, people.
> >
> > But over the last fourteen-fifteen years, the Labour Party has been a
> > different animal.

> Two great British institutions that have gone bad: The Labour Party and
> the BBC.

You missed out the Tories. Even worse than Labour in terms of going bad.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 21/06/2022 10:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The shame was that people weren't them moved to new housing *as a
> community* but were scattered around the borough. Thus losing a lot of
> friendly community contacts and support.

Reminiscent of John Prescott's Master Plan for Liverpool. Demolish all
the old houses and build new ones elsewhere, breaking up communities
that had been together for years.

One TV programme took one of these old house and made into a really nice
new home for a fraction of the cost.

There were suggestions of ulterior motives and relatives who would have
profited from rebuilding.

On 22/06/2022 10:19, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <jhdrn8FieatU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Labour Party politics was not then a religion. The party's leaders
>> tended to be sensible, down-to-earth, people.
>
>> But over the last fourteen-fifteen years, the Labour Party has been a
>> different animal.
>
> Bit like the Tories then, who have become the puppets of kleptocracy and
> other 'rich mates'. To the point where BloJo has to fly to Ukraine to find
> an audience that doesn't boo him!
>
> Jim
>
Basically we're fucked.

Bill

On 21/06/2022 10:45 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <t8qbqs$rkd$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> I have seen it written that post-war town planners did a lot more damage
>> than the Germans, knocking down buildings that could have been repaired
>> and replacing with very ugly structures.
>
> That may well have been true in some cases. However the house I was brought
> up in until about 10 years old was one of a set of similar houses that were
> best dealt with by demolition and replacement. I wasn't aware they were
> 'slums' at the time, but looking back, yes they were.
>
> Outside loos with no lights and only accessible via an outside door, not
> from the house. Coal celler under the stairs, resting on the bare ground.
> My bedroom got a pile of snow along the *inside* of the window when it
> snowed outside. When it rained I saw the damp patches on the ceiling caused
> by the leaks in the sagging roof of the terrace. etc.

All of those things would have been easy (and relatively cheap) to repair.

And the council wouldn't have managed to get their dirty mitts on the
land (the main objective in most cases).
>
> The shame was that people weren't them moved to new housing *as a
> community* but were scattered around the borough. Thus losing a lot of
> friendly community contacts and support.
>
> Jim
>

In article <jhthjlF44a1U5@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > That may well have been true in some cases. However the house I was
> > brought up in until about 10 years old was one of a set of similar
> > houses that were best dealt with by demolition and replacement. I
> > wasn't aware they were 'slums' at the time, but looking back, yes they
> > were.
> >
> > Outside loos with no lights and only accessible via an outside door,
> > not from the house. Coal celler under the stairs, resting on the bare
> > ground. My bedroom got a pile of snow along the *inside* of the window
> > when it snowed outside. When it rained I saw the damp patches on the
> > ceiling caused by the leaks in the sagging roof of the terrace. etc.

> All of those things would have been easy (and relatively cheap) to
> repair.

> And the council wouldn't have managed to get their dirty mitts on the
> land (the main objective in most cases).

One of the snags was that they were owned by private landlords. So it would
have been their responsibility to repair them. Trying to enforce that would
have driven up rents, or caused the landlords to evict, demolish, and then
rent out at much higher prices the new builds.

Simple repairs would have then meant having further 'repairs' as the whole
set of houses were badly made on bugger-all as foundations, etc.

So having direct experience of them, I know well enough that the simplest -
and in the end least costly - solution was to knock down and start again.

The problem, though, was that they demolished and did nothing with the
land, then built a multi-story crap rack. Then knocked that down, etc. Its
now the area where they have the new 'Stratford International' complex of
stations and the Olympics Park! After a succession of 're developments'
came and went.

The local council was heavily populated with local property builders and
speculators. Fancy handshakes and aprons. Go figger.

The one good thing they *did do* was build a lot of - much better to live
in - flats. Problem being the way people were then scatterred about or
shuffled out of the area.

And of course the flats got flogged off and not replaced when the Tories
found that it suited them in many ways...

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:45:09 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <t8qbqs$rkd$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> I have seen it written that post-war town planners did a lot more damage
>> than the Germans, knocking down buildings that could have been repaired
>> and replacing with very ugly structures.
>
>That may well have been true in some cases. However the house I was brought
>up in until about 10 years old was one of a set of similar houses that were
>best dealt with by demolition and replacement. I wasn't aware they were
>'slums' at the time, but looking back, yes they were.
>
>Outside loos with no lights and only accessible via an outside door, not
>from the house. Coal celler under the stairs, resting on the bare ground.
>My bedroom got a pile of snow along the *inside* of the window when it
>snowed outside. When it rained I saw the damp patches on the ceiling caused
>by the leaks in the sagging roof of the terrace. etc.
>
>The shame was that people weren't them moved to new housing *as a
>community* but were scattered around the borough. Thus losing a lot of
>friendly community contacts and support.
>
>Jim

There was a rumour in Manchester, in the 1960s, among the people who had
been scattered that the reason was to split up gangs of criminals.

We never found out whether that was true, but it was plausible.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> This indicates your problem  (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views or
> opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and others, can
> disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous. Do a bit of
> research, start with some definitions.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

:-)

Jim

On 15/06/2022 11:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> I recall reading that at one time some held the "view" that travelling much
> faster than a horse could gallop would cause them to lose consciousness as
> the air whooshed out of their lungs. This view turned out to be false.

Brunel ran into this mentality. He needed to tunnel under Box Hill. He
was told that at the speed his train would be travelling everybody on
the train would suffocate in the tunnel. He got past the objection by
building a tunnel with a gradient so that if everybody died the train
would continue out of the tunnel by gravity so that rescuers did not
suffer from the lack of air problem getting to the victims.

Funny enough, nobody has died in the tunnel (except some idiot who
decided to walk through and got hit by a train), despite trains now
capable of 125mph through it.

Every theory has its detractors before the theory is finally accepted as
being right. Gallileo was hounded for suggesting that the Earth went
round the sun.

Jim