but is still sold in the UK

Saline has an effect. It’s minimal in the spray form. But any liquid that is safe can help a little. And at this time of year. Dehydration from fan heaters is a common cause.

So I’m not surprised the crap is sold. Just remember, boiled water with a tiny bit of salt will do as well. Often better.

European countries

Interesting choice of tittle?

All ICC members is more than Europe. 122 countries. Not the US but other than that his travel is pretty limited.

GI Joe never made it to the UK. So unlikely any aged military top brass recognise it.

A bit like Americans naming chocolate bars, after UK names for women’s underwear.

Sounds like the eventual end. Will be learning how to take raw circler optical lenses. As the optical centres do. And build the tools for folks to shape them at home.

Such a project would be a huge advantage to many 3rd world environments. And would likely be about embedding quality glass cutting blades etc into 3d printed frames/mechanisms. Likely from PA. With the ability to embed metal rods and gears where stability, strength is needed.

It’s a guess ut I imagine the issue you have. Is most commercial opticians just see this as less option for them to sell overpriced frames. So agreeing to shape lenes for frames they dont sell. Is just a way to support the end of their profit line.

In the UK, when we started seeing the Chinese companies selling online glasses. We had lots of opticians refusing to give copies of the RX. Or limiting the positioning info they give. As all that part is NHS funded. Laws helped. But without legal force, companies ain’t going to help themselves lose business if it is obvious.

The way, it seems like Both Starmer and Biden are talking,

The current goal seem to be to convince Russia the war is too costly before Trump gets in.

If so. Honestly, I don’t think Moscow is considered untouchable by them any more.

I think they may have decided, allowing a nation to think its capital is safe while it is attacking another nation’s capital. It is just encouragement for that first nation to continue the war.

But like your comment. It’s just an opinion/guess based on the rhetoric I am seeing.

I’ll add if Russia is serious about MAD no longer applying. As they claim with their non nuke attack responding in a nuke response claims.

Then everything I have ever seen about the US and NATO’s attitude. Once MAD is off the table, so is the concept of a world peace. NATO has depended on the no first strike agreement from its birth. Without that, the US is less likely to be rational when it comes to nukes.

The USA is an Allie of Ukraine. And was helping it fund its defence against Russia before their attack.

It’s like your bullshit about the start of the first world war. The UK had a treaty that Germany thought we would ignore. They were warned if they attacked the nation, we would defend them.

That is how international support works. When nations like Russia ignore internarial agreements they make, they threaten the whole world’s peace by making it clear their word is not to be trusted.

The whole fucking idea that Russia can attack its neighbours and the rest of the world must mind its own business is a fucking crap attempt to bully the world. Its no more than an attempt by a bully to gaslight the world and unworthy of consideration.

And before you bring it up. Yes, I know the US can be no better when it comes to being an international bully. Does not give Russia an excuse to ignore its own internatioal treaties and threaten the world.

Accept, Russia broke international law when it attacked Ukraine. As it broke its own treaties to respect 1996 borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.

So nope. Also, the only reason Ukraine is not a part of NATO. Is that same treaty where they agreed not to join.

So anyway, you try to argue this. If Russia is the first to launch nukes. They started WW3.

So you’re saying Russia has never struck inside Ukraine. Or somehow The US started the war in Ukraine.

Or is it just a freaking stupid idea that one nation can attack another. And expect them not to retaliate.

I think you’re severely misrepresenting how much value is in the crown jewels. 6 to 8 billion. Where the UK is current deficit is 120billon a year. And a huge % of the jewel’s value is entirely due to their history. Hence, the fact no one really has a clear idea what they would raise. But as I said, selling them is not going to effect the lives of the UK’s poor in any way that is measurable. A quick search, Our GDP is 2.274 Trillion 6 to 8 billion extra is not even notable.

The people making them were paid.

Were they paid a fair value for their labour? Looking at the exploitation of workers throughout history, probably not.

Yep, fair for the time. Your attitudes about labour rates over the last 800 years (age of the collection oldest) are correct. But there have always been skilled jobs that earned more respect and freedom than most. For most of the time included, jewellery making was more specialised than smith or artist. Both ion demand buy wealthy to the point they would have been the closest to middle class in the 1200 and well and truly a part of the middle class by the 1600s as tradesmen started to become the middle class official.

You also fail to mention that many of these jewels were likely extracted using slave or poverty wage labour.

Here is where I have 0 disagreement. But until we invent reverse time travel (we already have forwarded, but the speed of light likely means going back will never happen) Fixing the arsehole past of the human race is not an option. And do not forget, these attitudes of abuse being acceptable were far from a unique action of the rich or royal.

If instead of building one huge fucking building on one huge estate for one family we spread the land between the people and built multiple homes for multiple people there would be far more money going to the rest of society and many more people’s lives would be improved.

Agreed, and if you manage to discover faster than light travel. Ill look forward to never having lived in that world.

But also remember looking back on people over the past. Who literally had to build in a way that allowed their property to protect against war. Remember, the King/Queen of England did not actually have an army until post revolution. But was required to win the support of lords under his/her reign to keep the kingdom safe.

The simple fact is, trying to judge people of the past on today’s expectations is silly.

The serfs (public) of the time genuinely believed God was responsible for promoting families to kingship. As did the Kings and Queens. All evidence (and gowd there is a lot) indicate the royals of the 1200 to 1700s Genuinely believed in the religiose bullshit the spouted.

(the time most of the happened and is actually documented to some extent. Before gets harder.)

The monarchy are a parasite and you’re an apologist for that. You seem to think you’re using facts and logic to explain their being but there’s glaring holes in your analysis.

Really, no there is not. That is the thibg about facts and history. Trying to apply 2024 emotions and logic to the actions of people of the past has to involve understanding the mindset of those people. Wishing they were different dose not change the facts or the analysis.

Assuming that because I have an interest and understanding of history and the mindset of the people of the time. I somehow agree with them existing now. Is your error, not mine. All I did was point out the actual economic logic of complaining about the crown jewels.

But at the end I will give you a run down of my politics.

We’re poor as a people and a nation because we allow and give excuses for the ultra rich to be rich. There’s always going to be people who value wealth and those who don’t but to allow those who value wealth to hoard so much that we as a society struggle to function is moronic and should be abolished. I’m just an Internet nerd who likes to read, not a politician, so I don’t know where the line should be drawn on personal wealth but allowing a handful of people to have more wealth than huge swathes of society is morally and functionally wrong.

Yep agree. You seem to assume I am right wing because I have a logical understanding of our past economics and the world it was created in. To be clear I consider our past to be horrible. I just do not think blaming the children of the perpetrators is an effective solution. That does not mean I object to the UK becoming a republic.

But I do strongly believe that if the UK was to destroy royal land and palaces. Then our ancestors would not have a past to learn from. It is the documentation and image of that history that raised you to be offended by it. To think you would be the same person you are now if the horrors of the past did not exist. Is naive.

Like it or not. You today have opinions your grand children will be disgusted by. I can’t tell you what they are. But that is the point society evolves. For that to happen your great-grandchildren will need to see evidence of the shit your generation does. And weigh it with the good.

This is a miss understanding.

The estate is run by the government. All its profit goes to the government. From that they fund the royal family with (currently 20% but historically less)

So pay no taxes is a huge misunderstanding. It works more like a nationalised company. But is owned by the crown.

History of this is related to Giii fight against US independence. At that time armies etc belonged to the crown. (Still answer to them technically) but no longer funded by them.

Royal families personal property is different. And until 1990s did not pay tax. But the Queen set up a voluntary offer to do so. Rather then force the UK government to become a Republic. Something they did not have the votes or support to do.

As for why the UK put up with it. Long and complicated. But the fact that our last republic was the same people who left the UK to form the US. Having banned Xmas and anything fun due to religiose ideals.

Left a pretty long bad taste in the UK for republics.

While most don’t worry about that. The US lack of health care workers rights etc still leaves folks pretty uncomfortable with a change.

As I said. Most folks sorta liked the Queen. Her working as a nurse during WW2 (before being queen) won her a lot of respect. It has been expected from the 70s that Charles would be the start of a Republic.

just abolish clown laws enabling these parasites not paying taxes.

Grins constitutional monarchy. Honestly, yes, you need to overhaul the system to do that.

This is why the queen volunteered to pay taxes on her income in the 1990s. (As I said they do pay taxes)

Remember, while our current royals are technically powerless. Our parliament is still only using their power. This is the literal meaning of parliament is sovereign.

Think of our Parliament as a regent. Because that is sort of how the power structure works.

This means it’s hard for parliament as is to create laws that affect the king. As such laws would lack constitutional support.

Same with our justice system. Anyone in the UK taken to court. It is technically them vs the king. As such, it is actually impossible for the king to be prosecuted.

Cool, don’t entirely disagree.

But while the death of ER2 means the republican view is definatly on the rise.

There is no indication that it is something the majority of the UK wants.

So childish insults in answer to historical facts and economic data only harms the case. Republicans do no have the might to win this as a war. They did in 1690. And found their own religiose crap lost them support. So Cromwell built our current system.

So if you want to tear that system down. Unlike the puritans of the 1690s. You need to take the population of the nation with you. And convice them your ideas are better.

“lapring these bootlicker talking points?” is just like saying. I have no answers, here is an insult.

Honestly, I am likely a good few decades older than you. And have expected the republican movement to gain ground after ERs death since the late 80s. As she was all that held it together.

I am sort of disappointed at how long it is taking for a viable argument to be formed and pushed to the people.

Your aversion to data seem stupid. How the hell you expect to even have a point if all data is seen as “lapring these bootlicker talking points?” rather then something you need a valid answer to.

Yes, they should pay tax. And do. Although only on their personal income rather than crown estates since the 90s.

Crown estates technically pays 80% tax since 1690s

Given how old, the crown jewels are. IE when that Money was spent.

How much difference do you think selling them or even never having purchased them would make.

Selling them. Divided between 66m people. Pennies,

Never having purchased them. Remember money doesn’t disappear. The people making them were paid. Hired others and spread the money through society.

Land purchases are less of an asset to society. But spending on building palaces has always resulted in money going to the rest of society and improving the lives of the rest of the nation. Not somehow removing it from people I’d say the modern royal post George III spending deal. Where all crown land is managed by the government and its income goes towards the general tax fund, In exchange for (currently 20%) being used to maintain palaces and funding crown/royal family events etc.

Is under austerity governments. More harmful, in preventing that income, funding jobs for lower income people.

Corporate trickle-down economics argument to reduce taxation may be utter crap.

But the history of royal spending and more modern (1940s+) government spending def has a trickle down effect ignored by modern capitalism supporting governments.

Pretty sure you will earn forgiveness for that pun.

Eventually

Why the hell would “The Government™” want to ethnically cleanse farming what the hell does that even mean?

As most farm owners. Like any land owner. Tend to vote right of centre.

it seems logical that they assume the Tax is designed to force families to sell the land. Leaving it available for cheap nationalisation.

Of course post ww2 when the labour gov had the most support and raised taxes on land last. Yes many families were forced to sell land or hand it to the national Trust.

But that is the time the UK could have nationalised farming with little difficulty. Give how long post war rationing continued. So its hardly a viable suggestion.

Huge saving. LOL, a bit like saying don’t worry your only going to die of a bullet, we save the rockets for the big boys.

Thames Valley area

Just FYI: Thames water covers a larger population than that. Much of London is not technically in the Thames valley.

EDIT: I’ll add. It’s anecdotal, as I can’t remember when or where I read it. But I seem to remember a Thames water complaint a good while back. That much of the older London area they cover has not been worked on for over 100 years. And is listed such that the cost is beyond them.

Not sure if I buy it given modern techniques etc. But I’m no expert.

In the early days, all those types of film were sold in injection moulded clip on cap tube canisters.

But I shouldn’t be surprised that the small sales market today. Means no one is running a big factory selling the canisters. I only ever used 32mm. My brother did a little with larger format films, so I can ask if he has any canisters in the attic. If that helped at all. (measurement and design wise) Not sure what other help I can offer. But if you think of anything a guy from the times film was common can offer. Feel free.