UKBouldering.com

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
shootin' the shit / Re: UK General Election 2024
« Last post by ToxicBilberry on Yesterday at 07:23:28 pm »
Slightly bigger aid budget. Maybe even have a dedicated  international development department again. So yeah, helping very poor people. Iím sure youíll find a way to hate it.

Not hating on it. Starmer is a puppet of the dark Lord Blair who has a pretty good record of manufacturing humanitarian crisis.

Edit : Should read Dark Lord Sir Tone Blair
12
shootin' the shit / Re: UK General Election 2024
« Last post by seankenny on Yesterday at 07:16:03 pm »
Slightly bigger aid budget. Maybe even have a dedicated  international development department again. So yeah, helping very poor people. Iím sure youíll find a way to hate it.
13
shootin' the shit / Re: UK General Election 2024
« Last post by ToxicBilberry on Yesterday at 07:07:58 pm »
I'm enjoying reading Labours plans to manage mass migration, including the euphemistic - 'tackling humanitarian crisis at source', I wonder what this means? 
14
get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: Changing the BMC
« Last post by shark on Yesterday at 06:56:37 pm »
Annual report and Accounts now out. No sign of the detailed Auditors Report promised by the CEO,

First glance at the format is that little has changed and therefore no detailed breakdown of allocation of expenditure by GB Climbing or how grant income was allocated. So same old, same old ie clear as mud.

Plenty of excuses in the chair's report if you are interested.

Headline figure only of £950k by the BMC to support GBClimbing (ie above and beyond grant and other income) so little doubt of the scale of support there on £4.85m overall expenditure. No indication whether that includes the cited £200k shared costs in the rebuttal letter for example.

As for the £625k loss the annual report says this:
The BMC made a larger than expected loss of £625k in 2023. The main reasons for these losses are grouped as follows:
1. Reconciliation of grants relating to GB Climbing and poor controls of budgets resulting in additional cost to the BMC. £361,284
2. Inaccurate accounting of VAT resulting in additional cost to the BMC.£61,420
3. Profit reconciliation across several areas including bad debtors and fees for services owed. £62,037
4. Loss of insurance income in July 2023. £41,627
5. The costs of restructuring, redundancies, and staff departures due to not tracking ambitious growth targets. £102,816

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-annual-general-meeting
15
shootin' the shit / Re: UK General Election 2024
« Last post by stone on Yesterday at 06:14:05 pm »
I thought the history of the buy-to-let mortgage bubble was fascinating. John Major kicked it off in 1996 eliminating restrictions on buy-to-let mortgages. That set off crazy house price inflation but of course by then Blair was in power and made out it was Blairite economic genius that was making everyone rich.
16
shootin' the shit / Re: UK General Election 2024
« Last post by Nemo on Yesterday at 06:00:33 pm »
@MrJonathanR - completely agree about fixing social care, although it's not a cheap thing to do, so will involve tough choices elsewhere.
And agree with at least some of the other points - I'm generally in favour of whatever will work when it comes to sorting out housing.  But +1 to everything SpiderMonkey said - to me, any solution very definitely requires radical planning reform. 

And whilst it's certainly a part of the problem, and whilst I agree with doing something about it, I don't agree that the super rich are the biggest problem in terms of housing (although in some specific places you're certainly right). 
A bigger problem to me at least is that large swathes of people from relatively modest backgrounds from the late 90s onwards were in a position if they owned one home, to get a buy to let mortgage and buy another one.  And another one.  And another one.  So that the ex electrician nearby owns over 50 houses and retired when he was 35.  And the little old lady nearby retired when she was 40 and rents out 20 houses.  And yet the neighbours (who rent) kid will never have a chance of owning one.  You can't blame that on foreign billionaires. 

Noone is critisizing those people for buying up large amounts of property.  It was the rational thing to do given government policy.  But government policy should have completely changed the incentives for doing that a very long time ago.  When swathes of the middle class for decades have been using the housing market as their pension pot, there's a problem.  So yes, as you say, completely changing the tax incentives around investing in property, short term rents (airbnb etc) all play a part. 

But there's also just a fundamental shortage of housing.  And what does get built is tiny, shite quality houses, crammed into the tiniest plot of land imaginable.  So fundamentally changing planning laws and building large amounts more housing, very definitely needs to be part of any solution. 
17
news / Re: significant repeats
« Last post by jakaitch on Yesterday at 05:47:35 pm »
Solly K D has repeated Isles of Wonder SDS, agrees with Aidans proposed grade


https://www.instagram.com/p/C7hNUQcNctQ/?igsh=MTVnZDR1OTBuZGMwaA==
18
shootin' the shit / Re: Climbers recovering from covid
« Last post by jshaw on Yesterday at 05:44:09 pm »
Sorry to hear this James. Regarding infectiousness of COVID, a general rule of thumb is: you are potentially infectious while you have symptoms. Infectiousness can vary from person to person. Many people will no longer be infectious after 5 days, some will be infectious for up to 10 days (source: NHS guidance).

Edit: was skimming and missed the follow-up Q.

The relationship between antigen test positivity and COVID-19 infectiousness is complicated. But a negative antigen test (provided it isn't falsely negative) would mean you are less likely to be contagious as the antigen will be below detection in your upper airway.
19
shootin' the shit / Re: Climbers recovering from covid
« Last post by James Malloch on Yesterday at 05:18:29 pm »
Got my first ever positive test today (3 days before dadís funeral - NNFNÖ).

Whatís the general advice these days, just rest up and donít overdo things when things start improving?

And how long would one likely be infectious - is a negative test enough to risk mixing with high risk family?

Iím feeling medium rough with shivers and everything aching so will probably just have some lemsip for now.

Iím guessing the fact I never hear anything about it now means itís basically just part of lifeÖ
20
get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: 180k cragx Mill Bridge
« Last post by Tony on Yesterday at 04:40:46 pm »
Forgive me if its buried somewhere in the arguments about water quality, but I thought the cost was £180k, and 49k has been raised.  So who's making up the £131k shortfall

It is not generally in my nature to reward sloth butÖ

The PDNP Foundation is not the PDNP Authority. My response was to a query regarding the funds raised by the former. The latter made the estimate of £180k for the work that they were seeking to have undertaken.

You can see some approximations of whence the Authority hoped the funding would come by using an internet search engine.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal