IanD

There was a "baby Deltic" with half the number of cylinders, but 1100hp is still quite a lot...

A close friend who was one of the staff... http://www.pubhistorysociety.co.uk/nosmoking.html https://keighleyandcraven.camra.org.uk/pubs/pots/2004/autumn.shtml Timothy Taylor's apparently promised that after the landlord's death (he wanted to be buried in the pub garden but this wasn't allowed) the smoking ban would stand "for all time", but I guess they sold the pub and the following landlord din't keep to this -- at least, not until the smoking ban came in. IIRC it wasn't quiet when we visited in the early 80s, it was full of people enjoying delicious TT Landlord which was a rare treat in the Dales at the time, the area was mostly a John Smiths and Tetleys desert...

IIRC it was the plod, a new road was built with the building which they got to name...

And as I said in an earlier post, it was a lovely pub with great beer, and you didn't have to wash your clothes afterwards. IIRC one of the landlord's family had died of smoking-related lung cancer, hence the ban.

South Yorkshire plod central is on Letsby Avenue... https://www.google.com/maps/place/South+Yorkshire+Police+Operations+Complex/@53.3960489,-1.3995788,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x4a42f26951f7a8f3!8m2!3d53.3960489!4d-1.3995788

Aptrick, obviously... aargh, just spotted reply further back -- never mind. In case anyone else remembers, the New Inn used to not only do fantastic beer (Landlord, when it was really *really* good) but was one of the first pubs in Britian to ban smoking, back in the early 80s. *Lovely* pub...

Cridling Stubbs, near Selby. And one for those unwary of local pronunciation, Appletreewick in the Dales...

There are enough resources and food to support the projected peak population, but not if everyone aspires to the wasteful Western lifestyle we have now which consumes so much energy, food and resources...

We were clearing out the small bedroom last week and found a bag hidden away which must have been at least ten years old. The good news is they probably weren't much more disgusting than when they were fresh. No we didn't try them...

And a fried egg. And brown sauce...

They're baked into circular shapes and then separated into four after baking along score lines made in the dough -- so if you're being picky, they're not "baked in triangular shapes". I should know, my dad used to be a master baker in Pontefract where they made thousands of the things...

If supplies of renewable energy were enough that you don't mind wasting a lot of it, you're correct. The chances of that happening in the next 50 years while there's such pressure to phase out fossil fuels is however zero. Any country with excess renewable energy will sell it to other countries which haven't, not throw it away turning water into hydrogen. You're completely ignoring the realities of the economics of energy supply and consumption; one huge priority is to replace fossil fuels with renewables, an equally big priority is to increase energy efficiency. And since to encourage better efficiency any transport is likely to continue being taxed according to its overall energy consumption (C02 emissions now), this would mean not only fuel costs but taxes would be a lot higher for hydrogen vehicles than BEV. This is the reality of hydrogen powered vehicles, and why nowhere is seriously considering rolling them out in any real volume -- yes there are a few tiny volume trials to showcase the technology, but no chance of it ever being rolled out in volume production until somebody repeals the laws of thermodynamics, no matter how attractive it seems from the range/quick fillup points of view...

You're still missing the point. You need 50%-100% more renewable (or any other) energy to fuel hydrogen cars compared to BEV because the whole cycle (including electrolysis if used) is so inefficient. Given that generating enough energy for all transport (and other energy uses) from renewables is a huge problem anyway, having to generate so much more will simply not be accepted.

All fine, except you also have to stop free movement of goods across borders and/or put big tariffs onto imports, otherwise the UK firm paying more than firms in other countries goes bust because their products are too expensive and won't sell -- and then they have to sell all their product in the UK because the other countries will put up similar tariff barriers to protect their own industries. Which is also fine if the UK market is big enough to consume all their output, but most firms currently export a lot or product, so they then have to cut down production volumes and sack half their (now better-paid) workers. So there are new fewer jobs available so the out-of-work ones have to be paid for by the state, which means putting up taxes. All of which leads to an economy where wages (for those working) are higher but so are prices and taxes, and unemployment is higher. It's difficult to see how the working man or woman will benefit from this... The only way that this all works (better-paid workers, low unemployment, profitable industries that don't go bust, effective health care that doesn't bankrupt people, good schools for all) with a small first-world country like the UK is to increase the education and skill levels of the workforce so they can get paid more for doing more highly-skilled jobs making more valuable products that people want to buy; it's impossible to compete against low-cost economies with low-skilled jobs. This is the Scandinavian/German model, which also involves people paying more in taxes on the understanding that taxes are the price of living in a civilised society. Unfortunately the UK/US mentality of "tax is a bad thing, government spending equals waste, privatisation is best" runs directly counter to this way of running an economy. I'm in favour of socialism (society taking care of its weaker/poorer members using tax paid for by its better-off ones -- like me...), but only if it results in a society that doesn't go bust. The "Red Robbo" mentality of "all that matters is the workers, screw the bosses and the company, give us lots more money for the same work" doesn't pass this test; it didn't work in the UK in the 1970s, and it would be even less likely to work now. The biggest problem is the mentality of most of the well-off, who see tax avoidance as almost a duty ("I don't use the NHS/food banks/council houses/free schools, so why should I pay for the scroungers who do?") but still want to live in a "nice" country like the UK. If tax evasion/avoidance, non-domiciled status, inheritance tax, higher-rate pension tax relief, and many other loopholes only available to the rich were clamped down on, there'd be plenty of money in the coffers to pay for things like better schools, NHS, properly funded universal credit (if it was fixed!) and so on -- but given this mentality, any UK government trying this would first be bombarded with protests from the Express and Mail and Telegraph about "squeezing the rich", and then if they persisted many of said rich would move abroad to protect their wealth -- ignoring the fact that this wealth was in the end generated by the workers that they don't want to benefit from it. If anyone can suggest a way to cut this Gordian knot in a way that doesn't result in businesses and the country going bankrupt as we roll back to the 1970s, I'd love to hear it...

Then he could fill the ditch with water. Then the people who can't afford houses could live on it in ramshackle boats... 😉