ForumGarden

That's as much culture as you're likely to find in a Wetherspoons

Snowfire;1492283 wrote: That's as much culture as you're likely to find in a Wetherspoons


Even the yeast is iffy

They're part of an SAS-trained private army raised to protect the species from poachers. I ask the sergeant what he would do if he spotted one of his friends or neighbours up to no good.

His reply is unequivocal. "If he comes to kill rhinos he is robbing the entire community. And I will shoot him dead."

There used to be 200,000 of the myopic beasts here in Kenya.

The snipers trained to protect rhinos - BBC News



I fear it took me some while before I realized the journalist wasn't referring to these mercenaries as "the myopic beasts here in Kenya". Very apt, I thought.

spot;1479203 wrote: There is, as yet, little information released about Speedboat crash in Solent leaves teenager critical - BBC News

I'd make the entire class of boat illegal, it's simply offensive that they're built in the first place much less bought.

I thought buoys were visible and marked on charts. Perhaps this one was hiding and adrift.

There is, for once, nothing wrong with the report, I'm only posting here to follow up on the earlier discussion.


Again I'm following up a report from earlier in the thread.

"None of the crew were wearing seatbelt harnesses or helmets, although this equipment was readily available as its use was mandatory when the boat was participating in organised racing events," it said.



Solent powerboat crash: Crew 'wore no safety gear' in 100mph test - BBC News



Well then. There you go.

The MAIB said the purpose of the report was not to apportion blame, but for "the prevention of future accidents".

There's nothing wrong with a bit of blame if it dissuades future chancers.

Not sure that wearing safety gear will prevent accidents. Though seatbelts would prevent one from being bounced out of his seat. Very important if they happen to be the operator.

spot;1493147 wrote: Again I'm following up a report from earlier in the thread.

"None of the crew were wearing seatbelt harnesses or helmets, although this equipment was readily available as its use was mandatory when the boat was participating in organised racing events," it said.



Solent powerboat crash: Crew 'wore no safety gear' in 100mph test - BBC News



Well then. There you go.

The MAIB said the purpose of the report was not to apportion blame, but for "the prevention of future accidents".

There's nothing wrong with a bit of blame if it dissuades future chancers.


What blame do you attach to whoever put out the non-standard buoys that caused the driver to swerve and thus caused the accident?

At the end of the day they could all have drowned in the upturned boat if they'd been strapped in and hanging from the ceiling.

Bryn Mawr;1493149 wrote: What blame do you attach to whoever put out the non-standard buoys that caused the driver to swerve and thus caused the accident?I think you might go back and check the sequence of events. If the BBC is accurate then hitting the buoy was stage 3, after flipping the boat, stage 2, which happened because the driver swerved to avoid what he thought was a diver marker in the water, stage 1. I can't see anything to suggest that what he thought was a diver marker in the water was a non-standard buoy. Admittedly I'm only going on today's BBC article, but that's all I have by way of information. It could have been anything, if the BBC article is factually wrong. Martian plasma weaponry might have been involved.

At the end of the day they could all have drowned in the upturned boat if they'd been strapped in and hanging from the ceiling.
One might wonder why the seatbelt harnesses and helmets are "mandatory when the boat was participating in organised racing events" if they don't improve safety.

Riding or driving a fast-moving boat, without wearing seat belts is an accident waiting to happen.

spot;1493159 wrote: I think you might go back and check the sequence of events. If the BBC is accurate then hitting the buoy was stage 3, after flipping the boat, stage 2, which happened because the driver swerved to avoid what he thought was a diver marker in the water, stage 1. I can't see anything to suggest that what he thought was a diver marker in the water was a non-standard buoy. Admittedly I'm only going on today's BBC article, but that's all I have by way of information. It could have been anything, if the BBC article is factually wrong. Martian plasma weaponry might have been involved.



One might wonder why the seatbelt harnesses and helmets are "mandatory when the boat was participating in organised racing events" if they don't improve safety.


The dive marker was one of the non-standard buoys.

One has to think of causes before one thinks of mitigating factors.

:p

Bryn Mawr;1493179 wrote: The dive marker was one of the non-standard buoys.What are you relying on for information? The article makes no such claim.

spot;1493189 wrote: What are you relying on for information? The article makes no such claim.


The statement in the article was :-

Peter Dredge swerved to miss what he believed was a diver's marker in the water.

The buoys were five-litre plastic containers used as fishing gear markers, which had been laid earlier that day.

They did not comply with the harbour authority's requirements.


Given that "the buoys" has no other introduction than the previous reference to dive markers I can only presume that they are one and the same.

But it does. The Vector V40R powerboat flipped over and hit a buoy in the Solent in May last year precedes the sentence you quoted.

Note the sequence. The powerboat flipped over. It then hit a buoy. It flipped over because it swerved to miss what he believed was a diver's marker. The swerve came first. Hitting the buoy was subsequent. There are two different things described.

Or the BBC reporter may be confused and it was the Martians.

spot;1493200 wrote: But it does. The Vector V40R powerboat flipped over and hit a buoy in the Solent in May last year precedes the sentence you quoted.

Note the sequence. The powerboat flipped over. It then hit a buoy. It flipped over because it swerved to miss what he believed was a diver's marker. The swerve came first. Hitting the buoy was subsequent. There are two different things described.

Or the BBC reporter may be confused and it was the Martians.


And what do you believe that a diver's marker would be if not a buoy?

The sequence is quite definitely :-

Driver sees "diver's marker"

Driver swerves

Boat flips

Boat hits buoy

Now whether the buoy was one of the "diver's markers" or another buoy is unclear but I see no reason to think that the diver's marker was anything other than one of the non-standard buoys.

Bryn Mawr;1493201 wrote: And what do you believe that a diver's marker would be if not a buoy?A beach football carelessly afloat in the Solent. You are asking me to invent, rather than interpret the facts as provided.

spot;1493202 wrote: A beach football carelessly afloat in the Solent. You are asking me to invent, rather than interpret the facts as provided.


You're talking about a professional driver here - it would at least need to look like the kinds of buoy a diver would use.

Bryn Mawr;1493203 wrote: You're talking about a professional driver here - it would at least need to look like the kinds of buoy a diver would use.
I thought a beach football, appropriately coloured, did - that was the point.

I read it that what was initially thought to be a divers marker was, in fact, a float for a fishing net (which may, or may not, have come detached from the net).

The whole thing about the safety harnesses is similar in many ways to the laws requiring seat belts & crash helmets on the roads. Their sole purpose is to protect the individual. If they choose not to wear that protection, then it is only themselves who they are putting at risk. However, when something as powerful as that is allowed to continue out of control with no-one at the helm, that's a different matter. The Solent / Southampton Water is a very crowded stretch of water (I know - my window overlooks it) and that is very likely to put anyone else at risk also.

Am I the only one to have thought the "Kim's nude selfies - Your views" would take me to an article on North Korea?

I've no idea how this got through whatever checks the editors have in place.Hear "The Philby Tape" on BBC Radio 4 on Monday at 08:00 BST

Kim Philby, British double agent, reveals all in secret video - BBC News



That's unambiguously 8 in the morning. The program's equally obviously on at 8pm. The BST is totally irrelevant, you can't get Radio 4 abroad.

What it should say is 8pm. If the format is for some obscure reason relevant then it's 20:00.

What annoys me most, really, is how many news readers and presenters on TV and Radio have this need to abbreviate words, putting commas before a letter to signify that it is taking the place of a letter - e.g. doesn't (does not), isn't (is not). In those two cases it can be rather confusing, and of course contradictory ! Somebody could report that something doesn't happen, but to somebody with anything less than acute hearing may think that the word was 'does' because it is a common fault with many presenters/newsreaders to drop their voices during a sentence. If 'doesn't' is miss heard as 'does', then the meaning of what has been said is totally the opposite from what was intended. It's the same with 'isn't', 'hasn't', or 'haven't' etc. .

I do wish that these announcers/newsreaders/presenters would not do this. It would be much better if they said does not or is not, then folk listening would understand much better, and not get a particular report wrong ! Don't you think ? Or perhaps I should say 'Do you not think so ?'

I've even heard "casn't" on Radio 4's Six O'Clock News, meaning "can not". I much prefer Received Pronunciation like what I use.

Scientists have estimated that there are 390,900 plants known to science.

The new tally is part of a report carried out by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. It is its first global assessment of the world's flora.

The study also found that 2,034 new plant species were discovered in 2015.

However, the report warns that 21% of plants are at risk of extinction, with threats including climate change, habitat loss, disease and invasive species.

Kew report makes new tally for number of world's plants - BBC News



Let's assume that the 21% of plants at risk of extinction are those currently most at risk, otherwise they'd not go extinct.

I reckon that makes around 99.9% of plant species at risk of extinction. That would leave the 390 most common plant species making up the surviving 79% of plants.

Does the BBC really claim evidence that 390,510 plant species are - present tense, currently known to be - at risk of extinction and only 390 plant species likely to survive? Or do they have a specialist meaning for the word "risk"?

Or are they simply incapable of expressing their facts clearly.

Please explain in simple terms to somebody that does not understand numbers, how the reported 21% of plants are at risk of extinction, turn into by your reckoning "around 99.9% of plant species at risk of extinction"

Bruv;1495628 wrote: Please explain in simple terms to somebody that does not understand numbers, how the reported 21% of plants are at risk of extinction, turn into by your reckoning "around 99.9% of plant species at risk of extinction"


21% of plants is a fifth of all the plants on the planet. If I have 5 plant-pots of hydrangeas that's five plants and one species. Two different things are being referenced, plants and plant species.

99.9% of plant species is every plant species on the planet bar one in a thousand.

If you sort the plant species from those with the fewest plants to those with the most plants, and then count plants along the list until you reach 21% of the total number of plants, you've used up 99.9% of the list of plant species. If you count the plants in the remaining 390 species you get the remaining 79% of all existing plants.

The last line of the quoted bit of the article should actually start: "However, the report warns that 21% of plant species are at risk of extinction"

So pardon me for stating the blooming obvious, you do know what the BBC were meant to be saying, lets hope the young journalist given that job doesn't get the sack, and of course that he learns from your constructive criticism.

I would much rather were the ignorant sod to be crucified on the steps of Portland House pour encourager les autres.

In this case, it was not the BBC fellow who made the mistake. The original report uses the same wordage, and all of the "News" outfits publishing something on the report have basically followed the same gaffe.

LarsMac;1495649 wrote: In this case, it was not the BBC fellow who made the mistake. The original report uses the same wordage, and all of the "News" outfits publishing something on the report have basically followed the same gaffe.I'm not sure where in the report you find that - the only equivalent passage I saw was on page 3 and says "21% of global plant species are currently threatened with extinction according to IUCN Red List criteria."

spot;1495650 wrote: I'm not sure where in the report you find that - the only equivalent passage I saw was on page 3 and says "21% of global plant species are currently threatened with extinction according to IUCN Red List criteria."


There is that. and further on, (page 59 of the report) there is a page header that states

"ONE

in

FIVE

plants ARE

estimated to

BE threatened

with extinction"

Scientific American, and even Reuters fell to the same mistake.

spot;1495634 wrote: I would much rather were the ignorant sod to be crucified on the steps of Portland House pour encourager les autres.


I have read this several times, and it could possibly be me but I think I might have detected an error of grammar or summat.

The placement of 'were' ?

I would much rather the ignorant sod were to be crucified on the steps of Portland House......mais je suis ignorant............por favor

Bruv;1495652 wrote: The placement of 'were' ?Your way, I think, requires an explicit "I would much rather if" at the start. My way certainly implies a continuation, "than that ..." but since the alternative is what you suggested (let's hope the young journalist, etc), it needn't be repeated, it can be taken as red.

LarsMac;1495651 wrote: There is that. and further on, (page 59 of the report)I bow to your superior ability to speed-reed, I got nowhere near Page 59!

Piss myself laughing, to use the vernacular.

I am hoist by my own petard. Again.

spot;1495655 wrote: I bow to your superior ability to speed-reed, I got nowhere near Page 59!


It's been a slow day at work, here.

Conman Norman Fowler was sentenced to nine months in jail, but unknown to Essex Police is now languishing in a Spanish jail.

Thousands on the run after skipping court bail - BBC News





Mr Fowler's chances in life were severely affected when his parents named him "Conman Norman".

Now we know why Gary Knighton became a policeman.

He is not a chap on whom my eye had previously alighted but if he ever writes a manual on how to get promoted, I'll buy a copy.

"Olympic bans loom for up to 31 athletes".

And so it should. No loom that large should ever be constructed. No training program should ever put up to 31 athletes on one loom all at the same time. This is sheer exploitation and it will take jobs from home-crofters.

Were you a script writer for the two Ronnies ?

Banning looms is a serious issue (for real):

School BANS loom bands to stop sheep and chickens getting sick by eating them - Mirror Online

Public toilets 'wiped out in parts of UK'

So they should be, too. Daily.

Yet more bafflement: "Queen to appear on Vanity Fair cover".

The BBC does not, in fact, mean Queen. The BBC means The Queen. One is an enduring British icon and the other is the nation's head of state.

"Equus starred Harry Potter actor Daniel Radcliffe in its West End debut. "

Amadeus writer Sir Peter Shaffer dies aged 90 - BBC News



Umm. 1976, Colin Blakely at the Albery Theatre?

My eyes aren't what they were, I thought a link today said "Raspberry Pi pioneer jailed" but it was "Raspberry Pi pioneer hailed". Another CBE, by the sound of it. Bravo Eben Upton, you're a hero.

spot;1496815 wrote: My eyes aren't what they were, I thought a link today said "Raspberry Pi pioneer jailed" but it was "Raspberry Pi pioneer hailed". Another CBE, by the sound of it. Bravo Eben Upton, you're a hero.
Was he someone who was respected for calculating the circumference of fruit?

He's tackling the problem that few people who can teach programming work at a school, but many pupils would like to learn programming.

"Meat Loaf 'stable' after stage collapse" means Meat Loaf was injured when a stage collapsed. That's not what happened. The link might be coherently written as "Meat Loaf 'stable' after onstage collapse".

spot;1497128 wrote: "Meat Loaf 'stable' after stage collapse" means Meat Loaf was injured when a stage collapsed. That's not what happened. The link might be coherently written as "Meat Loaf 'stable' after onstage collapse".


That's awkward too! It needs to be "Meat Loaf 'stable' after collapsing on stage'

Sounds like a horse shed falling over.