[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 13259)
Message
File  []
close
_97321351_54b89893-69bd-4daf-9c9a-0e1201723d97[1].jpg
132591325913259
>> No. 13259 Anonymous
14th August 2017
Monday 3:20 pm
13259 Big Ben's bongs to fall silent until 2021 for repairs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40922169

TEACON 3.
Expand all images.
>> No. 13262 Anonymous
14th August 2017
Monday 3:50 pm
13262 spacer

32R.3-1.jpg
132621326213262
Not to worry.
>> No. 13307 Anonymous
16th August 2017
Wednesday 1:36 pm
13307 spacer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40948412

Hasn't parliament got anything better to discuss? Christ just install a bell on another building if they are so desperate for bongs.
>> No. 13309 Anonymous
16th August 2017
Wednesday 1:54 pm
13309 spacer
>>13307

Twats; chasing faux-patriotism right up their own arses, acting as if there was something insidious behind the desire not to permanently deafen every bugger who'll be working up there. Or perhaps we should just do that? Like how they sealed workers inside the hull of Titanic, back before the "'elf 'n' safety" menace? However, I suppose the reason a lot of crusty mentalists get work at Westminster is owing to their near-autistic, trainspotter like fetish for archaic tradition and order, I imagine their SPADs have already spent the morning trying to get them to stop bawling and rocking back and fourth on their £600 super-delux office chairs, after hearing this news.
>> No. 13382 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 4:12 am
13382 spacer

ae235.jpg
133821338213382
If only there was a technical solution to loud, regular, predictable noise.
>> No. 13383 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 4:28 am
13383 spacer

bigben[1].jpg
133831338313383
>>13382
>A spokesperson for the work told the Evening Standard that clock mechanics who work on Big Ben currently get ear defenders, but are exposed to the ringing bells for only short periods of time each week.

>“People will be working on the scaffolding day-in day-out throughout the works, and, while protective headgear could be provided, it is not desirable for individuals working at height to have their hearing obscured as there is concern the ability to hear each other and any alarms could be affected.”

https://www.shponline.co.uk/right-stop-big-ben-workers-hearing/


But y'know, I'm sure they'd be able to work just as quickly and diligently throughout the day if they were ordered to slip earmuffs on and off every 15 minutes.
>> No. 13414 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 7:14 pm
13414 spacer
Not many people are mentioning the fact that Big Ben was silenced for 4 months in 1956 to replace the glass and do other repairs. Stopping it just once every 50 years is pretty good going.

>>13382
If you're inside the clocktower when the bell rings, it's 118dB. That's fucking loud.
The guidelines for prolonged exposure in a workplace is 80dB. The best headphones you can get are rated around 35dB reduction which means you can't guarantee workers will stay under the limit. You also have to consider that inside somewhere like the clocktower, headphones are less effective because vibrations are able to travel through the floor and conduct through your body.
Even assuming you can get adequate protection using headphones, it's not a great way to work, especially in a cramped space doing delicate work. If we force people to work in there with the bell operational, the work is bound to proceed a lot more slowly and end up costing more, and accidents that either result in injuries or just set the work back would probably be much more likely.
On top of that it's not just the noise that's the problem, you'd also be asking people to work around several tons of freely swinging metal, and a shitload of antique machinery.
>> No. 13423 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 10:35 pm
13423 spacer
BELL ENDS
>> No. 13424 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 10:51 pm
13424 spacer
>>13423
You missed a trick there, lad. That bell is massive.
>> No. 13428 Anonymous
22nd August 2017
Tuesday 8:40 am
13428 spacer
>>13383
Why is this not arranged in a bell curve?
>> No. 13429 Anonymous
22nd August 2017
Tuesday 2:42 pm
13429 spacer

birch-ply-wooden-bell-wood-craft-shape-618-p.jpg
134291342913429
>>13428
Looks like a bell to me.
>> No. 13430 Anonymous
22nd August 2017
Tuesday 2:45 pm
13430 spacer
I wonder what they're secretly putting in there.
>> No. 13431 Anonymous
22nd August 2017
Tuesday 3:15 pm
13431 spacer
>>13430
/boo/ is that way ->
>> No. 13432 Anonymous
22nd August 2017
Tuesday 3:34 pm
13432 spacer
>>13430
An easy supply of virgin blood to keep Theresa May looking youthful. She wants to be immortal like Prince Philip.
>> No. 13433 Anonymous
22nd August 2017
Tuesday 3:44 pm
13433 spacer
>>13432
>Keep Theresa May looking youthful.
>Keep youthful.

Might have spotted the flaw in your theory there lad.
>> No. 13434 Anonymous
22nd August 2017
Tuesday 4:45 pm
13434 spacer
>>13433
She doesn't look a day over 55, m7.
>> No. 13435 Anonymous
22nd August 2017
Tuesday 6:50 pm
13435 spacer
>>13430

They're having trouble keeping John Bercow under control, so they're installing a bigger transmitter up there.
>> No. 13437 Anonymous
23rd August 2017
Wednesday 1:08 pm
13437 spacer
>>13434

You're right she doesn't look a day over, she looks a decade over.
>> No. 13439 Anonymous
25th August 2017
Friday 3:50 pm
13439 spacer
>>13437

Being a top politician generally ages you a lot faster. These people have 16-hour workdays, which can go up to 20 hours during times of heightened political tension or election campaigns.

Unless you have an above average (genetic) resilience against these kinds of stress factors, it will suck the lifeblood out of you.
>> No. 13440 Anonymous
26th August 2017
Saturday 1:06 pm
13440 spacer
>>13439
Maybe the Donald is on to a thing with this going golf every weekend then?
>> No. 13441 Anonymous
26th August 2017
Saturday 8:49 pm
13441 spacer
>>13440
He's on to a thing with that not really doing the job properly.
>> No. 13442 Anonymous
27th August 2017
Sunday 6:02 am
13442 spacer
>>13441
I have genuinely become a lot more relaxed about The Donald. It is providing us with some of the greatest political theatre of the century. His election has made me read a lot more on American politics.
>> No. 13443 Anonymous
28th August 2017
Monday 11:54 am
13443 spacer
>>13442
>It is providing us with some of the greatest political theatre of the century.

If only. You've got a geriatric prat who acts like your uncle who hasn't figured out the correct dosage for his medicine, and who has become the world's chief Twitter troll. Oh, and he also commands half the world's nuclear arsenal which he can decide to use all on his own (no, really, unlike in the UK where at least in theory Parliament must OK a first-strike nuclear attack, the U.S. President can override any reservations against the use of nukes).

It may sound like age discrimination, but people his age shouldn't be in charge as their country's top political leader anymore. The best age bracket to be a country's leader is between around age 40 and 60, where you have enough life experience to make mature and level-headed decisions (again, ideally and in theory), and where your cognitive capabilities are still up to scratch. I read something about a study once where they tested different age groups of people for basic cognitive skills and judgement. The poorest performers in these tests were the age groups of 12-16 as well as the over-65s. Indeed, the over-65s tended to have even poorer judgement than many in the 12-16 group.

In other words, there just might be 15-year-olds out there who would be a better choice to be U.S. President than the Donald.
>> No. 13444 Anonymous
28th August 2017
Monday 12:37 pm
13444 spacer
>>13443
> unlike in the UK where at least in theory Parliament must OK a first-strike nuclear attack,

nope
>> No. 13445 Anonymous
28th August 2017
Monday 1:50 pm
13445 spacer
>>13443
Counterhypothesis: We should ban Americans from being president.

Our old PMs have generally been alright. Particular shoutouts to Gladstone and Callaghan. (Though particularly in Callaghan's case there's perhaps an argument to be made that this is more about the nature of Cabinet government than age.)
>> No. 13446 Anonymous
28th August 2017
Monday 1:57 pm
13446 spacer
>>13445
Can we not just revoke their independence and resume our place as their colonial power? That should solve any worries we have over trade after Brexit.
>> No. 13447 Anonymous
28th August 2017
Monday 2:15 pm
13447 spacer
>>13445

And Neville Chamberlain single-handedly prevented WWII.

>>13446

>Can we not just revoke their independence and resume our place as their colonial power?

Yes and no. The American War of Independence was an illegal act under various statutes of Colonial governance. Under these statutes, the revolution was actually invalid and could have been revoked.

The real problem is that Britain abandoned its status as a colonial power in 1948 and therefore gave up both its colonies as such and its legal frameworks of ruling them. So even if we demanded a reversal of the American revolution today, we would do so based on laws that are no longer in effect in the first place.

Technically, I think the U.S. would still be able to join the Commonwealth as a former de facto British colony, but who are we kidding.
>> No. 13448 Anonymous
28th August 2017
Monday 8:36 pm
13448 spacer
>>13447
I don't understand this post. Decolonisation was a gradual process. Perhaps I'm bad at history but what specifically happened in 1948 that made the American Revolution go from illegal to legal?
>> No. 13449 Anonymous
28th August 2017
Monday 10:16 pm
13449 spacer
>>13448

It didn't go from illegal to legal. At the time when it happened, it was an illegal act.

Technically, your culpability generally depends on the laws at the time when you committed an illegal act. But when the laws themselves are no longer in effect, then you have no more basis on which to prosecute somebody in criminal court. For example, homosexuality used to be illegal. If it came to light now that somebody was performing many homosexual acts while it was still illegal, then they broke the law back then, yes. But because homosexuality isn't illegal anymore, there are no more laws on which to base a criminal prosecution.


By the same token, if you did something that was legal at the time of you doing it, then any new laws banning whatever it is that you did can not be used against you. Because at the time you did it, it wasn't illegal.

It's that whole "ex post facto" what-have-you.
>> No. 13450 Anonymous
28th August 2017
Monday 11:01 pm
13450 spacer
>>13449
>But because homosexuality isn't illegal anymore, there are no more laws on which to base a criminal prosecution.
There are no more laws on which to base a criminal prosecution for acts committed after those laws were repealed. Offences under old laws committed while they were in effect may still be prosecuted under that law. Ask anyone charged with offences under the old Sexual Offences Act when it was repealed and replaced.
>> No. 13451 Anonymous
28th August 2017
Monday 11:48 pm
13451 spacer
>>13449
OK but you haven't really answered my question.
>> No. 13452 Anonymous
29th August 2017
Tuesday 11:42 am
13452 spacer
>>13450

One of the points about repealing a law in the first place is usually to end criminal prosecution of certain acts that used to be illegal. In that respect, it concerns both past and future offences. Also, in the case of homosexuality, the pendulum has swung towards amnesty and rehabilitation even for gays who were prosecuted under anti-gay laws. Just think of Alan Turing.


>Ask anyone charged with offences under the old Sexual Offences Act when it was repealed and replaced.

That's not a good example, as the Sexual Offences Act mainly consisted of a noticeable tightening of certain laws, and actually made illegal for the first time things that used to be legal.

In turn, you cannot be charged for things that were legal and which you did before the Sexual Offences Act took effect and made them illegal. This would otherwise pretty much be the definition of inadmissible ex post facto law.
>> No. 13453 Anonymous
29th August 2017
Tuesday 11:45 am
13453 spacer
>>13451

Britain gave up its status as a colonial power in 1948. With that, colonial law governing relations between Britain and her colonies ceased to exist. The American revolution was an illegal act under colonial law. But with the legal framework having been repealed, after 1948, it didn't matter anymore.

Why is that difficult to understand?
>> No. 13454 Anonymous
29th August 2017
Tuesday 12:09 pm
13454 spacer
>>13453
Because you haven't made reference to any specific 'colonial law' that was repealed in 1948 that governed Britain's relationship with America or any other country.

I mean
>Britain gave up its status as a colonial power in 1948
doesn't mean anything. How did it do this? Did it officially notify the United Nations of its intention to stop pillaging the world? Was there a treaty between Britain and the Commonwealth nations? What, specifically, happened?
>> No. 13455 Anonymous
29th August 2017
Tuesday 1:57 pm
13455 spacer
>>13452
>That's not a good example, as the Sexual Offences Act mainly consisted of a noticeable tightening of certain laws, and actually made illegal for the first time things that used to be legal.
That doesn't matter. Acts committed before the date it came into effect continued to be prosecuted under the old Act, because that's what was in force at the time. The authorities couldn't retroactively apply the new law because Parliament hadn't made it retroactive (which is possible but rare). Serial offenders whose acts crossed the boundaries were charged under both Acts, depending on when the individual offences were alleged to have occurred.

The reason we don't prosecute gay pensioners isn't because we repealed the law concerned, it's because such a thing is no longer considered acceptable in isolation. Turing isn't a particularly good example because the police had good reason to go after him and his prosecution for gross indecency was an example of that fine police tradition of "ways and means" - it was vindictive rather than discriminatory.
>> No. 13456 Anonymous
29th August 2017
Tuesday 3:57 pm
13456 spacer
>>13453
>The American revolution was an illegal act under colonial law. But with the legal framework having been repealed, after 1948, it didn't matter anymore.

The lack of recognition for Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (which heavily borrowed from the US) says otherwise. Indeed, the British government had an explicit policy of 'no independence before majority rule' which throws a spanner in the idea that states can just up and leave.

The reason the US is now recognised as a sovereign state by the British government is down to Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris 1783.
>> No. 13457 Anonymous
30th August 2017
Wednesday 3:34 pm
13457 spacer
I'm kind of forced to conclude that >>13447 / >>13453 doesn't know what he's talking about and nothing, in fact, happened of significance in 1948.
>> No. 13458 Anonymous
30th August 2017
Wednesday 11:11 pm
13458 spacer
>>13457

My grandad was born

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password