On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>
>>>>>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>>>>
>>>>Now you're just taking the piss.
>>>
>>>It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the
>>
>>Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>transparent.
>
>If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.

Define often.

>>>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>
>>I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>
>Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>as your unhelpful reply.

Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile upstairs
and found the page again. Can't be arsed.

On 05/02/2022 11:42, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 04/02/2022 21:39, GB wrote:
>>> On 04/02/2022 20:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
>>>> baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away
>>>
>>> A lot of the PMQ questions are foreseeable, and the answers are
>>> scripted. Do you think this was written for Boris, or he ad-libbed?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ad libbed, if you notice he tried to keep rolling out his dodgy
>> statistics rather than answer the question and when called out on it,
>> lost his temper.
>>
>
> Lieing to or deliberately misleading the Commons is supposed to lead to an
> automatic resignation by ministers, including the PM. He does it
> regularly, but refuses to admit he's done it, and there seems to be no
> 'Hansard Fact Checker' to determine when ministers have lied.
>

He has built his whole career on lies and has got away with it. Why
should he change now?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 05/02/2022 11:42, Recliner wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 04/02/2022 21:39, GB wrote:
>>>> On 04/02/2022 20:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
>>>>> baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away
>>>>
>>>> A lot of the PMQ questions are foreseeable, and the answers are
>>>> scripted. Do you think this was written for Boris, or he ad-libbed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ad libbed, if you notice he tried to keep rolling out his dodgy
>>> statistics rather than answer the question and when called out on it,
>>> lost his temper.
>>>
>>
>> Lieing to or deliberately misleading the Commons is supposed to lead to an
>> automatic resignation by ministers, including the PM. He does it
>> regularly, but refuses to admit he's done it, and there seems to be no
>> 'Hansard Fact Checker' to determine when ministers have lied.
>>
>
> He has built his whole career on lies and has got away with it. Why
> should he change now?
>

I'm saying that the Hansard reporting system should automatically
fact-check ministerial statements, or at least offer to do so on request.
That way, Johnson's frequent lies would have been officially flagged, with
him being forced to retract and apologise, or resign. Everyone apart from
Mad Nad knows he's lied to parliament, but no MP is allowed to accuse him
of lying.

On 05/02/2022 12:51, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2022 11:42, Recliner wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 04/02/2022 21:39, GB wrote:
>>>>> On 04/02/2022 20:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
>>>>>> baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of the PMQ questions are foreseeable, and the answers are
>>>>> scripted. Do you think this was written for Boris, or he ad-libbed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ad libbed, if you notice he tried to keep rolling out his dodgy
>>>> statistics rather than answer the question and when called out on it,
>>>> lost his temper.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lieing to or deliberately misleading the Commons is supposed to lead to an
>>> automatic resignation by ministers, including the PM. He does it
>>> regularly, but refuses to admit he's done it, and there seems to be no
>>> 'Hansard Fact Checker' to determine when ministers have lied.
>>>
>>
>> He has built his whole career on lies and has got away with it. Why
>> should he change now?
>>
>
> I'm saying that the Hansard reporting system should automatically
> fact-check ministerial statements, or at least offer to do so on request.
> That way, Johnson's frequent lies would have been officially flagged, with
> him being forced to retract and apologise, or resign. Everyone apart from
> Mad Nad knows he's lied to parliament, but no MP is allowed to accuse him
> of lying.
>

One of the problems of trying to run a government as an 18th century
theme park.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:22:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>>>>>
>>>>>Now you're just taking the piss.
>>>>
>>>>It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the
>>>
>>>Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>transparent.
>>
>>If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>
>Define often.
>
>>>>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>
>>>I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>
>>Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>as your unhelpful reply.
>
>Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile upstairs
>and found the page again. Can't be arsed.

If you did, you might notice that a David Perry was quoted on page 125, but I can't see any quotes from Roland Perry.
Meanwhile, the April issue has just been delivered (yes, on 5 February!).

In message <stj0eq$oj2$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:51:06 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 31/01/2022 15:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They know they are close to the indicated bridge height, but they
>>>>>> reckon there's probably a safety margin built in. So, build in a
>>>>>> bigger safety margin, and it will all be fine!
>>>>>
>>>>> Is 15cm not sufficient?
>>>>
>>>> You want to spend say £1m lowering the roadway in order to make the
>>>> margin 18cm. :)
>>>>
>>>> You have no evidence that it will work. Yes, I know that 9 out of 10
>>>> collisions were caused by drivers only misjudging by a couple of cms,
>>>> but you have no evidence that they won't continue to do so after the
>>>> road is expensively lowered.
>>>
>>> I’ve tried to take this up with Roland before but he insists, without much
>>> in the way of evidence except that the vans that are a couple of inches too
>>> tall are the ones that hit the bridge, that there is a break point in the
>>> distribution of van heights at around 2.85.
>>
>> Find me some which are. It might take you a while.
>
>No, you keep insisting that there is a fleet of vans out there that are a
>couple of inches too tall for the bridge and that raising the bridge that
>far will make sure that no vans hit it.

Not a huge fleet, maybe one van in fifty (or 100?) is a model of the
particular height that's either prone to wedging under the bridge or
just planing a centimetre off the top.

>It’s up to you to verify that claim.

Not really, especially as you've misrepresented it.

>You keep producing evidence of vans that are just too tall, but you
>provide no evidence of vans that are more than a couple of inches too tall
>because they don’t hit or scrape the bridge.

That's because there are almost no vans on the road in that height
racket.

>> An analogy I've used before is multi-storeys and SUVs. Typically the
>> former will have a height limit of 2m, and that works fine because even
>> the taller SUVs are rarely above 1.85m. If there were significant
>> numbers of SUVs that are 2.05m tall, I'm sure we'd have heard the
>> complaints about them being excluded from the facilities everyone
>> else uses.
>
>Or perhaps, just perhaps, SUV designers know that to fit into common spaces
>like car parks they have to make vehicles that fit under a 2 m bar.
>Where’s the evolutionary pressure like that to make vans fit into a 2.85 m
>high space?

The pressure is that almost no-one needs a van with a 3.5t weight limit
(that's the van plus contents) which is taller than the 2.80-2.86 range
that the manufacturers roll off their production lines.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stjgue$2un$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:32:30 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <stjcmo$44v$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:08 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>>>>> probably guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>>>>> (if they had the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>>>>> matters) is to put up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>>>>> the person who erected them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>>>>> do so, and the sign owner will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>>>>> from wherever the council stored it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
>>>> clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
>>>> blank.
>>>
>>> I doubt it’s criminal damage if it’s a sticker.
>>>
>>> https://seatons.co.uk/legal-services/criminal-law/criminal-damage-offences/
>>>
>>> The Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies criminal damage as:
>>>
>>> ‘A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property
>>> belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or
>>> being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
>>> damaged.’
>>>
>>> This offence is wide ranging and applies to any tangible property. For
>>> damage to be inflicted on a property however, it must be more than minimal
>>> and create a situation where the property’s value or usefulness has been
>>> affected in some way.
>>
>> There's plenty of caselaw for people being prosecuted for affixing
>> stickers (such as "stop parking here and blocking my gate") on people's
>> windscreens, and even doing things which will wash off like
>> chalk-paintings on pavements.
>>
>> And why do you think that a sign with a plain sticker obscuring it is
>> "as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who erected it or
>> the people trying to find the new housing estate?
>>
>> To be lawful for the local authority to deal with these signs, the
>> bureaucratic process is too top heavy to be helpful, or deployed in
>> more than extreme cases.
>
>I know of two local authorities that defaced unauthorised signs with grey
>paint.

As I described earlier, some appear to have more gung-ho legal
departments than others.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stjh2t$5so$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:34:53 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

>> I know of two local authorities that defaced unauthorised signs with grey
>> paint.
>
>Oh, and another that dealt with unauthorised event sign, eg car boot sales,
>by attaching a cancelled notice.

And you know that was an officer of the local authority, not a
vigilante?
--
Roland Perry

In message <stjh1r$4n3$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:34:18 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 04/02/2022 14:27, Roland Perry wrote:

>> To be lawful for the local authority to deal with these signs, the
>> bureaucratic process is too top heavy to be helpful, or deployed in
>> more than extreme cases.
>
>If it is bureaucratic then then just need to ensure that full cost is
>passed on to the offender as a disincentive to do it again.

That would require the ability to levy fines (or would they be fixed
penalty civil things). Whatever, they wouldn't have a hope of funding
the enforcement activity, and so there's little appetite to start
proceedings.

What's more, word does not "get around", to encourage the others. Most
of these people are so self-entitled they deny they are doing anything
wrong.

>All the political parties claim to be green but few remove their
>election posters within the statutary period so they can be recycled.
>Can't understand why they cannot cooperate and agree to remove each
>others' posters for recycling, perhaps each agreeing to do a particular
>area.

I've never heard of that particular thing being an issue, but I'm
beginning to detect a little it of movement locally for more appetite to
remove signs which are "out of date" (such as advertising a pantomime
that closed early in the New Year). It's not as if they could reuse that
exact same sign again this year - different play, different cast and
different dates.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stjlqv$51g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:55:59 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 04/02/2022 14:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <stjcmo$44v$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:08 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>>>>> probably  guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>>>>> (if they had  the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>>>>> matters) is to put  up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>>>>> the person who erected  them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>>>>> do so, and the sign owner  will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>>>>> from wherever the council stored  it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
>>>> clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
>>>> blank.
>>>
>>> I doubt it’s criminal damage if it’s a sticker.
>>>
>>>
>>>https://seatons.co.uk/legal-services/criminal-law/criminal-damage-offe
>>>nces/
>>>
>>> The Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies criminal damage as:
>>>
>>> ‘A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property
>>> belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such
>>>property, or
>>> being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
>>> damaged.’
>>>
>>> This offence is wide ranging and applies to any tangible property.  For
>>> damage to be inflicted on a property however, it must be more than
>>>minimal
>>> and create a situation where the property’s value or usefulness has been
>>> affected in some way.

>> There's plenty of caselaw for people being prosecuted for affixing
>>stickers (such as "stop parking here and blocking my gate") on
>>people's windscreens, and even doing things which will wash off like
>>chalk-paintings on pavements.

>> And why do you think that a sign with a plain sticker obscuring it
>>is "as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who erected
>>it or the people trying to find the new housing estate?
>
>I didn't say it was a plain sign. A sticker giving 14 days notice.

The number of words you need you use won't fit on a sign that small.

And you still need someone to approve and manufacture the sticker, and
deploy it.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stjh2t$5so$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:34:53 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> I know of two local authorities that defaced unauthorised signs with grey
>>> paint.
>>
>> Oh, and another that dealt with unauthorised event sign, eg car boot sales,
>> by attaching a cancelled notice.
>
> And you know that was an officer of the local authority, not a
> vigilante?

Yes, because it was stated in the local paper with reference to the local
authority doing it.

In message <stlq60$p8s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 12:22:24 on Sat, 5 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>>>>>
>>>>>Now you're just taking the piss.
>>>>
>>>>It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the
>>>
>>>Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>transparent.
>>
>>If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>
>Define often.

Once a week rather than once a year. Assuming of course that mentioning
people you've worked with is de-facto name-dropping. Like I said, it's
more like history, or even citing your sources.

>>>>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>
>>>I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>
>>Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>as your unhelpful reply.
>
>Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile upstairs
>and found the page again. Can't be arsed.

So you remembered I'd been quoted and where, and this was apparently
important to you, but you didn't remember what the quote was about?

--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:59:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <stlq60$p8s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 12:22:24 on Sat, 5 Feb
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now you're just taking the piss.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the
>>>>
>>>>Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>>transparent.
>>>
>>>If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>
>>Define often.
>
>Once a week rather than once a year. Assuming of course that mentioning
>people you've worked with is de-facto name-dropping. Like I said, it's
>more like history, or even citing your sources.
>
>>>>>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>
>>>Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>as your unhelpful reply.
>>
>>Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile upstairs
>>and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>
>So you remembered I'd been quoted and where, and this was apparently
>important to you, but you didn't remember what the quote was about?

And it wasn't you anyway.

In message <oh4tvg14j281kmpn4io80efvclmfjkcuqc@4ax.com>, at 15:05:58 on
Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>>
>>>>Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>>as your unhelpful reply.
>>>
>>>Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile upstairs
>>>and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>>
>>So you remembered I'd been quoted and where, and this was apparently
>>important to you, but you didn't remember what the quote was about?
>
>And it wasn't you anyway.

Can you clear up the actual issue-number. Boltar said "February" and
later "Intel on the cover" (and ignored the question about the number).

330 has 'Windows 11 laptops' on the cover.

So are we actually looking for 329 (in which case my trip to Tesco is
probably futile).
--
Roland Perry

In message <stjkcg$9bf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:11 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 04/02/2022 15:53, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

>> Depends if everyone behind you and ahead of you has pulled into the bus
>> lane first, I suppose, and you end up being the chicane…
>
>I suspect many people might worry more about being fined for use of the
>bus lane than for going through a red light.

Depending on where you are in the country (other places than London
exist, I've been told) bus lanes might indeed have more cameras than
traffic lights.
--
Roland Perry

In message <576rvgppo99pmbve3crjlfapf4edk41cn9@4ax.com>, at 21:30:48 on
Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 13:54:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <stjadl$7sb$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:41:09 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> That's normally the case here, which is why I was surprised, recently,
>>>>> to see one get stuck behind a car which hadn't pulled far enough across
>>>>> the pavement (pulling across at all being advised against in the Highway
>>>>> Code) on the exit of a traffic light junction. Normally they'd just
>>>>> whizz the Ambulance down the wrong side of the road.
>>>>
>>>> The thing to be very wary of is letting an emergency vehicle past at a
>>>> red traffic light if there is a camera. There is a well known case of
>>>> someone doing that for an unmarked police car on blues.
>>>
>>>Or moving to a bus lane to let them past…
>>
>>Shouldn't be necessary, because the Ambulance would use the bus lane.
>>
>Not if you have what exists along the Old Kent Road or elsewhere
>around Greater London where there are 24/7 bus lanes (hours altered
>with COVID) which are still interrupted by parking spaces. There is a
>similar problem associated with cycle lanes (often devoid of cyclists)
>now barriered off with posts.

If the ambulance is only needing to pass one or two cars, that analysis
is broken.
--
Roland Perry

In message <1u6rvg9ebpo1e7jfujdd85o0a265rorti6@4ax.com>, at 21:36:08 on
Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:34:14 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <stj158$7nd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:03:04 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've seen Ambulances turn off sirens at red level crossings, but they
>>>>> rarely get stuck at red traffic lights.
>>>>
>>>> I've frequently seen them stuck 3-4 vehicles back from the red traffic
>>>> lights; as you say, they turn off the sirens while there's no opportunity
>>>> for them to proceed.
>>>
>>>Only last week I saw something almost opposite to that. An ambulance was
>>>approaching a junction with traffic lights and a pedestrian island. It was
>>>on blues and twos on the wrong side of the road passing a queue of stopped
>>>traffic at the red light. When it reached the head of the queue, instead of
>>>passing the wrong side of the island it nosed into the queue and switched
>>>to a different siren noise to get the leading offside car to pass the
>>>lights to let it through. It seemed odd at the time.
>>
>>Perhaps they should adopt the policy of the Fire Brigade in cities like
>>New York and Amsterdam, where no-one is under any illusion that if they
>>don't clear a path for the bull-horn-blaring vehicle, they'll just get
>>shunted aside.
>>
>An idea nicked from Dutch tram-drivers?

Don't think so, they seem fairly timid. German tram drivers are a bit
more aggressive.
--
Roland Perry

In message <og0tvgpbsqc2lkvtiu6vf021a55pfau8jn@4ax.com>, at 14:00:28 on
Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:22:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now you're just taking the piss.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the
>>>>
>>>>Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>>transparent.
>>>
>>>If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>
>>Define often.
>>
>>>>>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>
>>>Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>as your unhelpful reply.
>>
>>Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile upstairs
>>and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>
>If you did, you might notice that a David Perry was quoted on page 125,
>but I can't see any quotes from Roland Perry.

I'm going to go buy a copy later. It's not at all unlikely I might be
quoted, as there's a huge amount of interest at the moment in retro
computing. And I'm quoted extensively in the recent Raspberry Pi book on
1980's home computing.

>Meanwhile, the April issue has just been delivered (yes, on 5 February!).

For some reason computer titles have always been at the front of the
monthly cycle.

The reason for the cycle being that magazines are deemed to need to be
dated the month ahead, because people browsing the bookshelves on the
1st March won't be interested in the February edition so at the very
latest you need the March edition out on 28th February.

And you can't physically produce and deliver, and restock, every title
simultaneously, so you need to dribble them out over the whole month.
thus some titles will have the March edition on the bookstands on 1st
Feb.

And then you try to attract mail order subscribers by having their
copies delivered about a week earlier than the bookstalls.

The PC Pro website suggests the next issue (331) might be out around the
25th though. And 20 days early seems a bit odd.

In other news:

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

While I won't name them for fear of offending Boltar, of the fifteen
contributors on the mastehead there, three I've known since the mid-80's
and two I've given several interviews to about retro computing in the
last couple of years.

I never did meet Felix, though.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <oh4tvg14j281kmpn4io80efvclmfjkcuqc@4ax.com>, at 15:05:58 on
> Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>>> one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>>> as your unhelpful reply.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile upstairs
>>>> and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>>>
>>> So you remembered I'd been quoted and where, and this was apparently
>>> important to you, but you didn't remember what the quote was about?
>>
>> And it wasn't you anyway.
>
> Can you clear up the actual issue-number. Boltar said "February" and
> later "Intel on the cover" (and ignored the question about the number).
>
> 330 has 'Windows 11 laptops' on the cover.

Yes, that's the April issue I received this morning.

>
> So are we actually looking for 329 (in which case my trip to Tesco is
> probably futile).

Nothing that recent — 329 was the March issue, which would have been
delivered about a month ago.

The February issue with 'Intel is back' on the cover was issue no 328. It
would have been superseded on shop shelves about a month ago. That's the
one with a quote from a David Perry on page 125.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 14:00:28 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:22:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now you're just taking the piss.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the
>>>>
>>>>Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>>transparent.
>>>
>>>If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>
>>Define often.
>>
>>>>>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>
>>>Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>as your unhelpful reply.
>>
>>Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile upstairs
>
>>and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>
>If you did, you might notice that a David Perry was quoted on page 125, but I
>can't see any quotes from Roland Perry.

I think you need new glasses. Or one of them was a misprint that got fixed in
a later print run. Definately says Roland in mine on the same page.

>Meanwhile, the April issue has just been delivered (yes, on 5 February!).

This sort of nonsense has been going on for years with some magazines
particularly computer and car ones. God knows why.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:59:27 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <stlq60$p8s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 12:22:24 on Sat, 5 Feb
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>
>>Define often.
>
>Once a week rather than once a year. Assuming of course that mentioning
>people you've worked with is de-facto name-dropping. Like I said, it's
>more like history, or even citing your sources.

Yet you never mention normal "shop floor" colleagues you probably spent 99%
of your time with and who did most of the work. Its always someone known in the
public realm or some high office you just happen to drop into a post.

>>Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile upstairs
>
>>and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>
>So you remembered I'd been quoted and where, and this was apparently
>important to you, but you didn't remember what the quote was about?

Who says it was important? Given how you seem to like self publicising I'm
surprised you didn't mention it. I just happened to remember it because I
read the article the night before.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 15:05:58 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:59:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <stlq60$p8s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 12:22:24 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now you're just taking the piss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>>>transparent.
>>>>
>>>>If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>>
>>>Define often.
>>
>>Once a week rather than once a year. Assuming of course that mentioning
>>people you've worked with is de-facto name-dropping. Like I said, it's
>>more like history, or even citing your sources.
>>
>>>>>>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>>
>>>>Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>>as your unhelpful reply.
>>>
>>>Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile
>upstairs
>>>and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>>
>>So you remembered I'd been quoted and where, and this was apparently
>>important to you, but you didn't remember what the quote was about?
>
>And it wasn't you anyway.

Which part of "Roland Perry, Former group technical consultant for Amstrad"
in section 11, page 125 confused you?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 15:27:17 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>computing. And I'm quoted extensively in the recent Raspberry Pi book on
>1980's home computing.

I don't really get the whole Pi link to retro. There's nothing retro about it,
its a compact form Linux computer and just as hard/easy depending on your POV
to program as any other linux box. A lovely little machine but has nothing in
common with anything from the 80s other than its ARM CPU being a descendent of
Acorn.

>While I won't name them for fear of offending Boltar, of the fifteen
>contributors on the mastehead there, three I've known since the mid-80's
>and two I've given several interviews to about retro computing in the
>last couple of years.
>
>I never did meet Felix, though.

You missed a trick there. Perhaps Amazon sell Ouija boards?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 15:05:58 +0000
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:59:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <stlq60$p8s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 12:22:24 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:58:43 +0000
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now you're just taking the piss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>>>>>> transparent.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.
>>>>
>>>> Define often.
>>>
>>> Once a week rather than once a year. Assuming of course that mentioning
>>> people you've worked with is de-facto name-dropping. Like I said, it's
>>> more like history, or even citing your sources.
>>>
>>>>>>> one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
>>>>> as your unhelpful reply.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I could have. After I'd gone and dug out the magazine from a pile
>> upstairs
>>>> and found the page again. Can't be arsed.
>>>
>>> So you remembered I'd been quoted and where, and this was apparently
>>> important to you, but you didn't remember what the quote was about?
>>
>> And it wasn't you anyway.
>
> Which part of "Roland Perry, Former group technical consultant for Amstrad"
> in section 11, page 125 confused you?

Ah, yes, found it, in the fourth column, under the picture of a red car.
David Perry is quoted in the second column, and I hadn't looked further.

I must admit that's not a section I often look at.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 15:27:17 +0000
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> computing. And I'm quoted extensively in the recent Raspberry Pi book on
>> 1980's home computing.
>
> I don't really get the whole Pi link to retro. There's nothing retro about it,
> its a compact form Linux computer and just as hard/easy depending on your POV
> to program as any other linux box. A lovely little machine but has nothing in
> common with anything from the 80s other than its ARM CPU being a descendent of
> Acorn.

Perhaps because it's an unashamedly bare-bones computer, like the ones from
40+ years ago? Like them, it's aimed at programmers, not consumers.