INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

The Rochester & Strood bye-election

Any topics that are primarily about humanism or other non-religious life stances fit in here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#21 Postby Dave B » November 22nd, 2014, 1:12 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

and if it goes off, it woudt deprive a fifty mile cirlcle of oxygen for 30 minutes.
I am trying to get my head round the physics of that idea!

TNT (I guess "THT" was a typo) and all other high explosives generate their own oxygen to fuel the reaction, in that respect they are no different from the gunpowder I made as a kid.. Even if there is a "slow burn" some of the energy, both blast and heat, will be absorbed in the water or shifting a lot of it elsewhere.

Any rising heat, fireball or column, will draw air in from the surrounding environment and, yes, its oxygen will be partly consumed in the fire but it will be experienced as a wind - two winds, one hot outgoing from the blast (lasting closer to 30 seconds (if it is a sustained series of large explosions) than 30 minutes) and one nice cool one coming in.

Nothing to do with the election but an interesting thing to ponder - wonder if Mr Barker published this idea anywhere . . .

Later: reading a bit on this I suddenly realised that I have been within a matter of feet of the ship! They used to (may still do so) "Trips round the wreck" from Sheerness where we used to holiday back then. The masts are still above the water.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22418
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#22 Postby Alan H » November 22nd, 2014, 1:15 pm

Dave B wrote:Nothing to do with the election but an interesting thing to ponder - wonder if Mr Barker published this idea anywhere . . .
Barking mad...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6068
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#23 Postby animist » November 22nd, 2014, 1:18 pm

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:Nothing to do with the election but an interesting thing to ponder - wonder if Mr Barker published this idea anywhere . . .
Barking mad...

maybe, in view of his political aspirations, he is willing to pay only World Government taxes

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#24 Postby Dave B » November 22nd, 2014, 1:31 pm

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:Nothing to do with the election but an interesting thing to ponder - wonder if Mr Barker published this idea anywhere . . .
Barking mad...
Seems he had a .gov epetition rejected and seems to have a few sites, or a large presence on sites, elsewhere.

It certainly has the look and language of a "conspiracy theory". There was a Vimeo clip of another explosives expert talking about the actual munitions but I cannot get sound on Vimeo, a second opinion would be nice.

Later: Vimeo prob obviously in FireFox, works in IE. Other expert was calling for a better survey of the wreck to check the state of the cargo rather than the hull integrity.

Video election campaign by Mr Barker, wearing a Santa suit, seems to confirm your estimation, Alan. :D
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#25 Postby Altfish » November 22nd, 2014, 7:03 pm

Nick wrote:Until Reckless won the seat in 2010, it had been a Labour seat for many years, though the last Labour MP won by only a couple of hundred votes last time.


There were significant boundary changes involved that help the Tories initially win and then make it a blue seat.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22418
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#26 Postby Alan H » November 22nd, 2014, 8:02 pm

Altfish wrote:
Nick wrote:Until Reckless won the seat in 2010, it had been a Labour seat for many years, though the last Labour MP won by only a couple of hundred votes last time.


There were significant boundary changes involved that help the Tories initially win and then make it a blue seat.

Gerrymandered?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10868
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#27 Postby Nick » November 27th, 2014, 11:07 am

Altfish wrote:
Nick wrote:Until Reckless won the seat in 2010, it had been a Labour seat for many years, though the last Labour MP won by only a couple of hundred votes last time.


There were significant boundary changes involved that help the Tories initially win and then make it a blue seat.

Nope. The boundary changes were not significant. Not at all. If you think otherwise, please provide evidence. In any case, UKIP took 43% of the vote, the Tories 34% and Labour a miserable 16.8%. No way can that be attributed to the minimal boundary changes.

TEA: And in the previous election, in 2010, before the boundary changes, the Tories received 23,603 votes, Labour 13,651. (UKIP didn't even stand). Boundary changes? Don't come the raw prawn on that one! :wink:

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10868
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#28 Postby Nick » November 27th, 2014, 11:11 am

Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:
Nick wrote:Until Reckless won the seat in 2010, it had been a Labour seat for many years, though the last Labour MP won by only a couple of hundred votes last time.


There were significant boundary changes involved that help the Tories initially win and then make it a blue seat.

Gerrymandered?
Oh the irony!! Labour have a 5% advantage nationally, and scream "gerrymandering!" at any attempt to make constituencies more even. But then, that just reflects their method of choosing their leader. :wink:

And how typical, to throw out an accusation, without evidence, and not within the gift of the Tories anyway. :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22418
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#29 Postby Alan H » November 27th, 2014, 11:39 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:There were significant boundary changes involved that help the Tories initially win and then make it a blue seat.

Gerrymandered?
Oh the irony!! Labour have a 5% advantage nationally, and scream "gerrymandering!" at any attempt to make constituencies more even.
Where?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10868
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#30 Postby Nick » November 27th, 2014, 5:02 pm

Alan H wrote:Where?
Nationally. Y'know, in the UK...

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22418
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#31 Postby Alan H » November 27th, 2014, 5:04 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Where?
Nationally. Y'know, in the UK...
Oh I see. I must have had earplugs in or something and missed them shouting it from the rooftops.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10868
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#32 Postby Nick » November 27th, 2014, 5:17 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Where?
Nationally. Y'know, in the UK...
Oh I see. I must have had earplugs in or something and missed them shouting it from the rooftops.

Quite possibly.... :wink:

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#33 Postby Dave B » November 27th, 2014, 5:22 pm

When did all this screaming on the part of Labour take place, Nick? I can't remember it either.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22418
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#34 Postby Alan H » November 27th, 2014, 5:57 pm

Dave B wrote:When did all this screaming on the part of Labour take place, Nick? I can't remember it either.

Although interesting, it's also not strictly anything to do with whether boundary changes affected the Rochester & Strood bye-election.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10868
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#35 Postby Nick » November 28th, 2014, 6:13 pm

Dave B wrote:When did all this screaming on the part of Labour take place, Nick? I can't remember it either.
Around the time of the proposed reduction in MP's to 600, before the Lib Dems stifled it.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10868
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#36 Postby Nick » March 12th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Hi Dave, I've just come across your response (how could I have missed it? :shrug:) Yes, indeed, THT was a typo. :)

As for the physics, what puzzles me, as a non physicist, admittedly, is how TNT can somehow go bang when it is (presumably) soaking wet. I base that solely on my experience of matches, and doubtless TNT is somewhat different, so I am not making an argument from incredulity but asking a genuine question. I am rather overwhelmed by the thought that I don't know anything about TNT.....

Nothing to do with the election but an interesting thing to ponder - wonder if Mr Barker published this idea anywhere . . .
Try googling "Barker SS Montgomery".

(I tried "Barker Montgomery" and found a "boutique" law firm in Mayfair. Huh? "Boutique"? They do however, have clients in fashion, hair and beauty..... :D )

Later: reading a bit on this I suddenly realised that I have been within a matter of feet of the ship! They used to (may still do so) "Trips round the wreck" from Sheerness where we used to holiday back then. The masts are still above the water.
Indeed they are. Glad you are still with us! :D

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#37 Postby Altfish » March 26th, 2015, 8:23 am

Nick wrote:
Dave B wrote:When did all this screaming on the part of Labour take place, Nick? I can't remember it either.
Around the time of the proposed reduction in MP's to 600, before the Lib Dems stifled it.

That only went pear-shaped because the Tories blocked the promised House of Lords reforms and in response the Lib Dems then refused to back boundary changes, it was the Tories fault and would have sailed through otherwise.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10868
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The Rochester & Strood bye-election

#38 Postby Nick » March 26th, 2015, 9:41 am

Altfish wrote:That only went pear-shaped because the Tories blocked the promised House of Lords reforms and in response the Lib Dems then refused to back boundary changes, it was the Tories fault and would have sailed through otherwise.
Hmmm.... The Tories carried out their side of the bargain by holding the FPTT referendum. House of Lords reform failed, not because the Tories "blocked it", but because, as with previous attempts, no-one could agree on what the reforms should be. I see no evidence that Lords reform will "sail through" any time soon.


Return to “Humanism, secularism, freethought...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest