Brexit, for once some facts.

[oyster]

Mail and Times are going after the £3 million for a seat in the Lords story. Strongly.

I can't imagine anyone who had paid £3 million, if there were any truth in the allegations, would be very happy at becoming the focus of investigation.

While Observer goes after Covid contracts.

 

[Danidl]

. The vast majority of London's 10 millions don't use the underground. I'm a Londoner born and bred, but I last had a trip on the underground in 2010 and the previous occasion was a trip in 1954.
.

As the London Underground has about 5 million journeys per day , that argument is hard to sustain. It means there is really a lot of visitors , or 2 Million Londoners take a journey to and from daily. In fairness the bus is at least twice as popular...

 

[guerney]

I'm not waiting for my GP this time - I'm going to book a booster online... because despite taking all precautions, life can thrwart best laid plans (and I plan on getting laid [but I'm always planning on getting laid]).

 

[Woosh]

I just walked into the vaccination centre. No booking.
There was only a very small queue, a couple of people.
They asked me for my NHS number and gave me the jab (Pfizer).

 

[oyster]

Roll out the barrel same old, tired and pathetic line:

'Get booster jab to save Christmas', British health minister urges

Javid ain't no saviour. Of Christmas or anything else, so far as I can tell.

 

[Woosh]

Roll out the barrel same old, tired and pathetic line:

'Get booster jab to save Christmas', British health minister urges

Javid ain't no saviour. Of Christmas or anything else, so far as I can tell.

I still like him better than his two predecessors (Hancock & Hunt).
for education, I like Nadhim Zahawi better than Gavin Williamson.

 

[oyster]

I still like him better than his two predecessors.

Three piles of poo on the pavement. I'd rather step in this one than the other two?

 

[Woosh]

Three piles of poo on the pavement. I'd rather step in this one than the other two?

which tory MPs would you like to have those two posts?

 

[flecc]

As the London Underground has about 5 million journeys per day , that argument is hard to sustain. It means there is really a lot of visitors , or 2 Million Londoners take a journey to and from daily. In fairness the bus is at least twice as popular...

No, you've completely missed the third very large factor, all the huge numbers who commute in by train and then continue on the underground to their destination or across London to their outgoing main line station. They aren't Londoners, they are from the Home counties or far beyond. And yes, there really are a lot of visitors, 22 millions each year on average, more than double London's population.

It always amazes me how many commute daily from distant counties like Suffolk, Norfolk, Hampshire etc., and a few even from the West Country. And of course the way main line rail is structured, a high proportion of all long journeys by rail go via London, which usually means using the underground to link between the termini. Indeed that was what my 1954 trip was, Hampshire to Scotland via London Underground linking Waterloo to Kings Cross.
.

 

[oyster]

Indeed that was what my 1954 trip was, Hampshire to Scotland via London Underground linking Waterloo to Kings Cross.
.

Though there has long been a cross-country service via Basingstoke, Reading, Banbury. (Obviously depends on where in Hampshire.) Not sure it always extended to Edinburgh - possibly at times terminated at York or Newcastle-upon-Tyne, - and has at times (I think) split with part going to Glasgow.

 

[flecc]

Though there has long been a cross-country service via Basingstoke, Reading, Banbury. (Obviously depends on where in Hampshire.)

That's the key, it wouldn't have been an option for me from Bournemouth, which was in Hampshire back then. I imagine that is a slow service anyway, via all those places, whereas Bournemouth - Waterloo and on to Scotland via either route are the fastest express services.

In later years from London I flew to Glasgow instead.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

It was another of Hitlers directives. They wanted the me 262 as a pure fighter. Hitler insisted its development was towards fighter bomber roll,a task it was not ideal for at all. (short range and bomber racks slowed it significantly)
When used as a fighter against Bomber streams it was almost invincible. Had 150mph advantage over escorts(mustangs) and carried a superb Canon. Limited numbers, lack of spares and Hitlers insistence of it being misused all negated what could have been an incredible effect.
The Russian Stormavitch would have been no competition for it.... Had they had infrastructure, which Allies had bombed to uselessness. (not to mention lack of fuel caused by allied bombing)

More ignorance on display The Russian IL-2 Sturmovic was a ground attack aircraft not a fighter it carried a lot of armour and wasn't all that manouverable
The Me 262's were plagued by unreliable engines, Adolf Gallant stated that the aircraft would have been radically better with the British design jet engines.
The main vulnerability of the 262 was the poor acceleration on the jet engines, many were bounced and shot down while either taking off or landing.
Many suffered engine failures too
In reality virtually all the 300 Me 262 that saw combat were the fighter variant

 

[oldgroaner]

Oh Dear this has appeared on Twitter
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDiyWeQWYAQ4-_p?format=jpg&name=900x900

 

[flecc]

Oh Dear this has appeared on Twitter
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDiyWeQWYAQ4-_p?format=jpg&name=900x900

.
As the saying goes, beauty is only skin deep.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

You need to not just convince me, but probably every WW2 historian that Russia could have won war on its own.. That's the BS... Do your homework OG..
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4h4c7w Read When Titans Clashed by David Glantz.
View attachment 44678
And German doubly strong (at least) with no bombing campaign, no French front, no Africa to fight in.. Etc etc

American War production outpaced Russian, even by 1945. Russia had some focused production that managed to just beat US, but you can't suddenly remove all that war production from balance and expect same out come.. Germany was on its knees not because of bombing by Russians but because of US and UK efforts. Again, remove that, and free up all the hardware fighting in France, Africa, Italy and all of a sudden Germany are a different prospect. Yes, we all know sacrifice Russians we're willing to make, but without US, etc etc there would have been millions more.
How about offering a semblence of justification for your silly opinion. Fact, figures, likely outcomes etc without US, UK, France, Etc etc. Just calling my explanation BS is typical OG. No facts to back your opinion up at all, so call names.

It's an opinion I, ve heard before, normally held by those who actually think they know more about WW2 than they actually do. Facts say you argument is utter BS. Not mine.)

By the very end of the war German production was still at it's peak from underground factories, the bombing while a nuisance only really became effective when it was used against transportation and moving troops in the last days.
Sorry old chap, but you are still pushing nonsense. try again

 

[oldgroaner]

which tory MPs would you like to have those two posts?

None of them works for me.

 

[oyster]

That's the key, it wouldn't have been an option for me from Bournemouth, which was in Hampshire back then. I imagine that is a slow service anyway, via all those places, whereas Bournemouth - Waterloo and on to Scotland via either route are the fastest express services.

In later years from London I flew to Glasgow instead.
.

The train started at Bournemouth! Looks like there are currently no direct trains even to Newcastle. Change at Birmingham. About 8 hours to Glasgow.

 

[flecc]

The train started at Bournemouth!

That's now, as I said, wouldn't have been an option for me in the 1950s.

I can't say currently, but given the old express services from Bournemouth, that was the best option at the time. Of course electrification has changed a lot, but with my own eyes as recently as 2010 I've seen an example of the continuing huge scale of north-south travel via London termini. Hardly surprising, given the combined population of London and the Home Counties and London being the capital.

However it's good to know that there's been more progress in integration of the original four company structure to have more long routes not going via London. Ideally we'd get rid of most of the latter.
.

 

[oyster]

That's now, as I said, wouldn't have been an option for me in the 1950s.

I can't say currently, but given the old express services from Bournemouth, that was the best option at the time. Of course electrification has changed a lot, but with my own eyes as recently as 2010 I've seen an example of the continuing huge scale of north-south travel via London termini. Hardly surprising, given the combined population of London and the Home Counties and London being the capital.

However it's good to know that there's been more progress in integration of the original four company structure to have more long routes not going via London. Ideally we'd get rid of most of the latter.
.

The service existed at least in the early 1960s and, I think, well before. Just can't readily find how long it took then.

I'm sure if I went through archives of timetables, I'd eventually find it.

At one point, I was using Thameslink and/or Watford via Clapham routes. Which made sense to me at the time. But the lack of transport from outside London to the other side has long been a problem.

 

[flecc]

The service existed at least in the early 1960s and, I think, well before. Just can't readily find how long it took then.

I'm sure if I went through archives of timetables, I'd eventually find it.

It was British Rail in 1954 and they only offered me the route I said to get to Glasgow.

I'd moved from Bournemouth at the start of the 1960s so have no idea what followed then.
.