The Off Topic Topic

[Tamas]

There's also bat bricks which alarm me because we have really strict bat protection laws. So it'd basically make knocking down any building with a bat brick impossible unless you can prove no bats use it

Oh come on, bee bricks, bird bricks, now bat bricks? Surely you are making this up.

[The Brain]

Human. Bricks. You heard it here first.

[Tamas]

Human. Bricks. You heard it here first.

They are called studio flats.

[The Larch]

There's also bat bricks which alarm me because we have really strict bat protection laws. So it'd basically make knocking down any building with a bat brick impossible unless you can prove no bats use it

Oh come on, bee bricks, bird bricks, now bat bricks? Surely you are making this up.

[Sheilbh]

How much is it going to cost for someone to go around the city washing bricks?

It won't be cleaned by the council - or anyone because you need to take it out of the mortar

The idea of Brighton city council contracting for that is unlikely given that they are in almost annual industrial disputes with the binmen.

Oh come on, bee bricks, bird bricks, now bat bricks? Surely you are making this up.

Bee bricks, swift blocks and bat blocks
https://www.greenandblue.co.uk/

This is where - and I'm not fully behind them yet - I sympathise with some of the centre-right/libertarian-ish commentary that there's a bit of licence raj culture taking route in the UK. Just lots of little things that lots of businesses need to do - and record doing - that cumulatively increase the cost of business (and it's not clear for how much benefit). So biodiversity net gain rules, modern slavery statements, fee to the regulator if you process personal data (and all companies do), pay gap reporting, legal duty for hospitality venues to have an anti-terrorism plan, mandatory bee bricks, the new restrictions on high fat, sugar and salt foods (how close are they allowed to be to the till, what offers you're allowed to do with them etc), mandatory calorie reporting on restaurant menus. All of them, independently, might be good ideas and each, individually, doesn't cost much but I think they do build up especially for smaller businesses and this is where I do start to get a little bit libertarianish and leaning to a "bonfire of the regulations".

[The Larch]

legal duty for hospitality venues to have an anti-terrorism plan

Wat.

[Sheilbh]

Wat.

Yeah - it followed a campaign by the mother of one of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombings. Obviously I sympathise with her and maybe that attack and the Bataclan plus Paris stadium attack there is a need for large venues to think about this.

But so far, Home Office has confirmed they're going to introduce a new law requiring venue operators to consider the risks of terrorist attacks and take proportionate and reasonable measures to prepare and protect the public - probably through policy documents, mandatory training plus establishing an independent regulator to share best practice. They're consulting on what to do with small venues or venues run by volunteers (including places of worship). But yeah it strikes me as a little bit of make-work (especially paperwork) than something that'll actually be particularly helpful (I also just can't really understand what in practice this would look like - because surely it makes a difference if it's a bomb v a shooter attack etc? ).

[The Larch]

If it's meant for venues that organize large events of any kind I could understand it, either as a plan on its own or as part of a general security plan. The way you worded it made it seem as if every pub should have one of those plans. 

[Sheilbh]

If it's meant for venues that organize large events of any kind I could understand it, either as a plan on its own or as part of a general security plan. The way you worded it made it seem as if every pub should have one of those plans. 

It's not.

They're still working out what the policy will look like with but it's looking like it'll be pretty broad:

A majority (seven in ten) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the concept that those responsible for publicly accessible locations should take appropriate and proportionate measures to protect the public from attacks at these locations. Seven in ten respondents also agreed that responsible venues and organisations should prepare their staff to respond appropriately in the event of a terrorist attack.

When considering which locations should be within the scope of the Duty, the most popular responses within the free text questions throughout the consultation were all publicly accessible locations (mentioned 53 times), followed by all locations in general (32), then large gatherings (31). Further to this, participants generally tended to agree that larger organisations (250+ employees) should be included in scope compared to smaller organisations, with very few considering micro-organisations (1-9 employees) to be within scope.

Fifty-eight percent of respondents considered that there should be no exemptions from the Duty (other than those proposed for certain transport sectors where similar legislation already applies). For those who considered that there should be exemptions, the most popular considerations were for: locations in low-risk (particularly rural) locations; based on the score of a risk assessment; for charities and venues run primarily or solely by volunteers; for community groups and village halls; and places of worship, particularly if they are small.

When asked what criteria would best determine which venues a Duty should apply to, the capacity of a venue was the most popular criterion. However, there were also a wide range of other proposals, of which the most popular were based on an evaluated risk of a location; average, rather than maximum, capacity of a venue; the geographical setting of a location; and the type of event held at a venue.

For those who considered capacity was the best criterion, over half considered that a threshold of 100 persons or more should determine venues in scope of the Duty. The mean of all suggested capacity thresholds was 303 persons.

[The Larch]

Given the almost tyrannical views of the British general public, as it has been regularly mocked here every time we comment on a survey in the UK, I doubt that an opinion poll on what such a law should cover is the best way to develop it. 

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Human. Bricks. You heard it here first.

The Japanese were almost there with their "Metabolism" architecture:



Each block is a complete apartment. Didn't work, as I understand, this building is about to disappear.

[Sheilbh]

Agreed - not a survey it's a consultation so those are 800 responses from pressure groups, industry bodies etc.

I've helped write a couple of responses to consultations - normally if it reaches consultation stage, they've decided they're going to do it so it's just trying to shape what it looks like. And as I say like all of those measures - another is the requirement on bigger companies to have a publicly published plan to get to net zero - make sense on their own and would be popular. But you start adding them all up and there's a lot and I'm not sure there's enough benefit to justify it except to consultants who will charge expensively to help you tick the boxes.

Each block is a complete apartment. Didn't work, as I understand, this building is about to disappear.

A shame as it's iconic

[Gaijin de Moscu]

A shame as it's iconic

A true shame indeed.

Chris Broad, a British vlogger living in Japan, did a rather nostalgic video on it:

https://youtu.be/6SwvtBxxp2w

[Josquius]

So, apparently bread buns aren't bread buns in the south.... And Cumbria oddly enough. Traitors.

[Sheilbh]

A very Tyr take on where the South starts: North Yorkshire