Gas Space Heater

I bought a 2nd hand gas space heater the other day for the garage. It's something I've been wanting for some time in order to continue working on the GT6 rebuild in comfort, but painting a cupboard in the garage has added some criticality to the need, just to assist the paint in drying.

Paid £40 for one on Farcebook Market. It's really powerful and heats the garage really fast, but it doesn't half rip through the gas. I thought I'd test it with the remains of some gas I had left in my SafeFill refillable gas bottle that I use for the motorhome, but it only lasted about an hour. It burns 2.46 litres of liquid gas (1.2kg - approx) per hour at full tilt while belting out 107,000 Btu (31.4kW), although you can turn the burn rate down. 31kW is more than enough - my 12.5kW wood burner in the house heats both upstairs and downstairs with no effort.

It wouldn't be so bad if the garage had insulation, but it doesn't. The workshop at the back does, but the walls of the garage are just ply and cladding, so the heat escapes rather fast.

The price of LPG at garage forecourts has gone through the roof. A year ago would could get it at around 59p - 89p per litre, depending on fuel station, but now it's around £1.09 per litre (although you can occasionally find it for less), but still a lot cheaper than propane bought in bottles. At £55 for a 19kg bottle of propane, that works out to £1.43 per litre (LPG at the pumps is purchased in litres, whereas propane in bottles is sold in kilograms and 1 litre of LPG or propane is 0.493kg). 

That said, the SafeFill bottles have become so popular that they've also shot through the roof in price.

I usually refill my SafeFill bottle at a Morrison's at Cribbs Causeway in Filton, which is my nearest LPG emporium, but it's a rather hit and miss affair. Sometimes I have no problem, but many times I can't get any gas into the bottle at all and have to give up. 

Looking up on the internet as to whether anyone else in the motorhome community was having similar problems highlighted that Morrison's gas connections are particularly renowned for not behaving as they should. It was recommended to replace the existing Safe-Fill gas connector with a modified one that facilitates a tighter connection with LPG dispensers - so I ordered one at £18.

Now, if I want to use the GT6 rotisserie as a rotisserie in the true sense, i.e. with a pig stuck on it, I can use the space heater as a BBQ underneath it ....

GT6 Rotisserie

The rotisserie for the GT6 was delivered yesterday. I was surprised at how heavy it is, but it's certainly robust. 

It will look something like the photo below when assembled and will enable me to rotate the tub to whatever angle I want in order to perform any welding that might be needed (and some is) on the underside. Trying to weld the underneath from below is a nightmare, as weld simply drops down under the force of gravity.

It has a self-levelling tool which allows the rotisserie to operate around the exact centre of gravity of the tub and is made-to-measure for the GT6.

Putting it together will be fun, once I've managed to get rid of the cupboard I'm scheduled to paint in the garage....

Once I've finished using it I can sell it on for at least 2/3rds of the purchase price, providing I keep it in good condition. However, having said that, I could use it for hog roasts over a bonfire.....

Assisted Dying

The question of assisted dying is one of the most ethically complex and emotionally charged issues facing the UK today. Parliament is poised to vote on the matter, but it raises an important question: who should ultimately decide on this sensitive topic? Is it right for MPs - who are not elected specifically on their stance on assisted dying - to cast the deciding vote? Or should the matter be put to a public referendum?

 

One argument in favour of a referendum is that assisted dying touches on deeply personal beliefs, spanning morality, ethics, and religion. Since MPs are not elected based on their views on such niche issues, some argue it is inappropriate for them to make a decision of this magnitude. A referendum would allow the people to directly voice their opinion on a matter that could affect anyone in a profoundly personal way.

If a referendum were called, MPs could instead vote on whether such a referendum should take place. This would maintain their role as decision-makers while recognising the limits of their mandate on specialised moral issues.

However, the case against a referendum is equally compelling. Matters like assisted dying require careful, nuanced consideration of legal, ethical, and medical implications. Public opinion, while valuable, can be shaped by emotion and media narratives, which might lead to oversimplification of the issue - as we have seen from the Brexit referendum.

For instance, a referendum on capital punishment - a similarly emotive issue - would likely result in its reinstatement, despite strong arguments against it. Such a decision might be driven more by visceral reaction than by a thorough examination of the evidence or consideration of human rights implications. Could a referendum on assisted dying suffer a similar fate, with the public swayed by personal fears or high-profile cases, rather than the complex realities of end-of-life care?

There is no easy answer to how the UK should decide on assisted dying. One potential compromise could involve a citizens’ assembly - a representative group of people tasked with studying the issue in depth, hearing from experts, and then making recommendations. This model combines the breadth of public opinion with the depth of informed deliberation.

Alternatively, MPs could be tasked with facilitating more robust public consultations and debates before casting their votes. While not as direct as a referendum, this approach would ensure that public sentiment informs parliamentary decisions without risking the oversimplification of the issue.

Whether the decision is made by MPs or the public, it must be approached with humility, compassion, and respect for differing views. Assisted dying is a matter of life and death - literally - and deserves a process that honours its gravity. A referendum may offer direct democracy, but it also risks reducing a profound ethical debate to a simple yes or no. Conversely, a parliamentary vote maintains the tradition of representative democracy but raises questions about MPs’ mandates on such deeply personal matters.

How we decide to decide may be as important as the decision itself.

Double Standards

Every year, governments quietly enact bans on harmful substances. From asbestos to toxic pesticides, these decisions are made to protect public health, and they rarely provoke cries of "nanny state" interference. Most people understand the necessity of removing carcinogens from our environment to save lives and reduce healthcare burdens.

 

But when the UK government recently proposed a generational ban on cigarette sales - a measured approach to balance decades of harm, health costs, and scientific evidence - the backlash from FOREST (the smokers' advocacy group) was swift and predictable. Out came the tired accusations of infringing on personal choice and overreaching government control.

This reaction exposes a glaring double standard. If asbestos is deadly, we accept its ban as a public health necessity. If cigarettes kill - and they do, on an enormous scale - it’s suddenly about liberty and choice. Yet smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, burdening the NHS with billions in avoidable costs and wreaking havoc on families. The government isn’t instituting a generational ban for kicks; it’s a pragmatic solution to a long-term public health crisis.

An outright ban on cigarettes would indeed create significant issues, not least the immediate loss of tax revenue that tobacco sales generate - a necessary consideration in the short term. A phased, generational ban ensures the harms of smoking are tackled over time without destabilising public finances. It’s a compromise that prioritises future generations while recognising the complexity of the current landscape.

As for FOREST, their arguments seem to miss the mark. Addicts are not free agents; they are trapped by a substance designed to hook them for life. When most smokers start as teenagers, often unaware of the true difficulty of quitting, where is the personal choice in that? And when the healthcare system and taxpayers shoulder the immense cost of tobacco-related illnesses, whose "freedom" are we really protecting?

Critics of the so-called nanny state should examine their principles more closely. If government intervention to ban harmful chemicals is acceptable, why not the most lethal consumer product in history? This isn’t a debate about freedom - it’s about health, fairness, and ensuring a healthier future for generations to come.

Simon - yes! (That's a message to a mate of mine).

A Taxing Business

Rachel Reeves is being criticised, predictably, by businesses for increasing employer NI; however, a key question is whether taxing consumers or businesses is the better approach for raising revenue without triggering a recession. Let’s explore the dynamics.

 

Taxing consumers reduces their disposable income, leading to an immediate drop in spending. Since consumer demand drives a significant portion of the economy, this reduction can ripple through businesses, resulting in lower revenues, job cuts, and investment slowdowns. This cycle risks pushing the economy into recession. Low-income earners, who spend most of their income on necessities that keep the economy going, are particularly affected. Taxing them not only increases inequality but also reduces the money circulating in the economy, as they typically spend a larger proportion of their earnings than wealthier groups.

Taxing businesses can reduce profits, potentially affecting investments and hiring. However, if consumer demand remains stable, businesses are less likely to make drastic cuts. They might absorb some of the tax through lower profits or pass costs onto consumers, depending on market conditions. High-margin sectors, such as technology or pharmaceuticals, can better withstand higher taxes, whereas low-margin industries like retail or hospitality might struggle. Nonetheless, taxing businesses is less likely to cause an immediate drop in economic activity compared to taxing consumers.

High-margin sectors, such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and luxury goods, operate with significant pricing power and lower sensitivity to increased taxes. Conversely, low-margin industries, like retail, hospitality, and agriculture, are vulnerable to cost pressures and intense competition, leaving little room to absorb additional taxes. 

On balance, taxing businesses is less likely to harm economic growth, as long as consumer demand remains intact. Businesses have more flexibility to adjust to higher taxes without cutting jobs or investment. Taxing consumers, particularly low-income earners, can be counterproductive, reducing demand and triggering a downward spiral of economic contraction. 

However, governments can balance the burden by targeting high-margin sectors, offering incentives for business reinvestment, and protecting lower-income groups from excessive taxation.

Effective taxation requires a nuanced approach. While taxing businesses tends to have a less immediate impact on the economy, sector-specific considerations are crucial to avoid unintended consequences. By prioritising policies that protect consumer demand and target those most capable of bearing the tax burden, governments can raise revenue without undermining economic stability.

Reeves is taking a calculated gamble with logic on her side, but it's still a gamble.

A Van of Lights

This came and parked at work the other day.

I would love to see it driving round the streets lit up at night, but I'm sure it's illegal if being driven while lit up.

GT6 Modified Chasis

Picked up the Mk VI Spitfire / GT6 Mk3 chassis with the Mazda MX5 rear axle yesterday from a place just outside Oxford. I borrowed the works recovery truck, which has a few quirks, not least of which is a knackered turbo that blows out an impenetrable smokescreen for about 10 minutes when started from cold.

The diff was in the cab. I'll be leaving it on our top car park for now, covered with a tarp until it's time to use it.

I won't be using the wheels - my Minilites are much better and, if I can afford it, I'd like to switch to chromed wires.

The new rotisserie is scheduled to arrive on Tuesday, but I won't be able to put it together for a month or two as, while we had the recovery truck, we also collected a large pine cupboard from a friend in Minety who is moving to Brixham and gave it away. We had to put it in the garage where it will be stripped and painted to match our other living room furniture. It will be a facsimile of "Mouse Back" or "Elephant's Breath".......

No.1 Son suggested "Jumbsy Tail" as a colour name. Jumbsy - known as Jimmy to his actual owners - has a bit of a habit of sneaking into our house, usually accompanied by two other neighbourhood feline freeloaders. For reasons best known to them, our home seems to be the local cat magnet. Jumbsy, bless him, is a senior citizen in cat years, with a heart as big as his... well, let’s just say "botty issues." Unfortunately, his fluffy tail gets caught up in the emissions from his botty and it often doubles as an unwelcome paintbrush, leaving unique streaks of "art" on our furniture. And thus, the hue of "Jumbsy Tail" was born—a colour that’s as unforgettable and smelly as it is undesirable!

Fake Outrage

A further post on my 7th November one about IHT on farms.

Jeremy Clarkson has recently turned his ire to Inheritance Tax (IHT) rules, claiming they’re unfair to farmers. But scratch the surface, and the complaint starts to feel more like an attempt to justify a tax dodge rather than a genuine agricultural grievance. 

Clarkson argues that IHT is a burden on farms like his, even though by his own admission, his children have no intention of running the operation. Why? Because they have no interest in earning the meagre combined income of £114 that the farm reportedly generates. That raises the question: if it’s not a viable, working farm that supports future generations, should it even qualify for agricultural tax relief? 

If Clarkson’s farm were truly a working farm - managed for agricultural production rather than as a TV backdrop or pet project - he could have already addressed the IHT issue. Options like gifting the farm to his heirs (tax-free after seven years) or placing it in a Trust for long-term family benefit are perfectly viable under the current system. These mechanisms are widely used by genuine farming families to preserve their agricultural heritage. 

The reality seems to be that Clarkson wants the farm classified as agricultural land for tax purposes, even though it appears to operate more like a hobby farm or commercial entertainment venture. If it’s not producing enough income to interest his children, is it really a business deserving of tax relief, or is it simply a luxury estate wrapped in a farming façade? People like him also push up the price of agricultural land to unaffordable levels, bringing many farmers into IHT.

Inheritance Tax exists to prevent wealth hoarding and to encourage the proper use of resources. Genuine farmers, whose land supports food production and rural communities, can access generous exemptions. Clarkson’s case seems more about keeping an expensive asset in the family without facing the usual tax consequences—a luxury most actual farmers could never afford. This isn’t about saving Britain’s farming heritage; it’s about saving Clarkson’s wallet. 

When the solution is so simple - gift the farm or put it in a Trust - is it just me, or does the saturation coverage on social media posts, expressing vehement outrage, have more than a whiff of Tufton Street about them? The outrage isn't justified, by any stretch of the imagination. Tufton street and its client media has a way of persuading tax payers to defend tax avoiders, to their own detriment.

However, if the solution is indeed so simple, why muck around with APR in the first place, unless it's targeting farms that aren't really farms, which is surely a good thing?

The Em Dash

 Ever heard of the 'em dash'? I certainly hadn't until recently.

I was intrigued at how some writing contains an elongated hyphen with no spaces either side of it and wondered what the technical term for it is and how it's created, as there is no key for it on a standard keyboard.

Here's an example; "She was happy—ecstatic, even."

Now I have always used a hyphen with a space either side of it for emphasis, but the elongated dash which no spaces is what should be used, and it's called the em dash; however, you can't type it on a keyboard (I copied and pasted the above example). Some word processors, such as Word, will autocorrect two hyphens as an em dash if autocorrect is set to on.

Then there's a creature called an en dash.....

Restore Trust

The rise of Restore Trust, a political organisation opposing the National Trust’s efforts to recount the full history of its properties, highlights a troubling resistance to confronting Britain’s colonial and exploitative past. 

Under the guise of protecting “traditional values,” Restore Trust seeks to sanitise history, framing the National Trust’s inclusion of slavery and colonialism in property narratives as “woke ideology” or “virtue signalling.”

 

Restore Trust claims that discussing colonial links and slavery detracts from heritage enjoyment. In reality, its agenda aims to erase uncomfortable truths, replacing them with a narrow, uncritical celebration of grandeur and empire. This selective memory ignores growing public interest in understanding history’s complexities and risks alienating diverse audiences.

Despite portraying itself as a grassroots movement, Restore Trust has been linked to significant funding from undisclosed donors, raising questions about its transparency and true motivations. Reports have connected the group to right-wing think tanks based in Tufton Street (a bit like the Taxpayer's Alliance, which is not an alliance and represents only those wealthy individuals wishing to avoid tax completely), known for their influence on Conservative policies. This association suggests that Restore Trust's campaigns may be part of a broader political agenda aimed at resisting progressive narratives in cultural institutions.

A German equivalent of Restore Trust would face widespread condemnation for attempting to downplay Nazi atrocities. Post-WWII Germany is internationally recognised for its honest reckoning with its past, integrating Holocaust education and memorialisation into public life as a moral imperative. Far from diminishing national identity, this transparency fosters accountability and ensures past mistakes are not repeated.

Restore Trust’s campaign does not preserve history—it distorts it, suggesting that some chapters of Britain’s story are less worthy of remembrance. This approach undermines efforts to build a shared understanding of the past and its impact on present inequalities.

History is not diminished by honesty. The National Trust’s approach, which integrates colonial and slavery narratives into the stories of its properties, enriches our understanding of heritage. Restore Trust’s attempts to whitewash the past, by contrast, reflect a nostalgia for a version of history that never truly existed. Confronting the darker chapters of our past, as Germany has shown, strengthens national integrity and ensures that future generations learn, reflect, and grow.

The Day of the Gangs of London

Gangs of London Series 1 = Absolutely brilliant!

Series 2 = What a load of crap. I switched to Gardner's World after episode 2 - it had more of a plot.

It seems they ran out of ideas and thought wall-to-wall machinegun scenes would stimulate the audience.  Seems like a difficult 2nd album moment.

The Day of the Jackal - a good story, if somewhat predictable and relying and on hackneyed and improbable tropes, but if you're expecting a reworking of the original you're in for a disappointment - so why call it Day of the Jackal? The name sets up an expectation that's never met and hence colours your judgement. Hay never saw the original and so isn't as disappointed as me - it should simply have  been given a different name, like The Bourne Resurrection or The Sound of Machineguns. 

Identity Politics

The term Identity Politics has entered political discourse as a pejorative, especially within the right of the political spectrum.

The pejorative use of identity politics often frames it as divisive and exclusionary, accusing it of prioritising group differences over shared values, fostering a "victim mentality," and sidelining merit in favour of representation. Critics argue that it fractures society into competing factions, stifles debate through ideological rigidity, and marginalises those outside specific identity groups. It is also seen as a tool of political correctness or "woke culture," weaponised to challenge traditional values or silence dissenting voices. Detractors view it as overly focused on grievances, undermining collective problem-solving and broader societal cohesion.

However, identity has always been central to politics. From the earliest days of governance, politics has been shaped by the identities of those in power and those seeking representation. Historical examples abound: 

• Monarchies and aristocracies were often defined by lineage and heritage, identities tied to birthright. 
• Religious identity shaped politics for centuries, influencing wars, alliances, and policies. 
• Class identity has driven movements such as socialism and the labour movement, centred on economic and social hierarchies. 

The difference with what we now call identity politics lies in its explicit focus on historically marginalised or underrepresented groups seeking to redefine political priorities. Traditionally, politics catered to dominant identities - often wealthy, white, male, and heteronormative in many Western societies - without naming these identities as political forces. Modern identity politics highlights the ways that other identities (e.g., race, gender, or sexuality) have been systematically excluded or disadvantaged, demanding specific attention and remedies.

Anti-wokeism seeks to maintain and legitimise existing systems of power by framing challenges to the dominant identity as excessive, unnecessary, or harmful. By positioning itself as a defence of "common sense" or "traditional values," it effectively reasserts the privilege and centrality of the dominant group, often under the guise of opposing division or promoting equality. It is the mainstay of the populist right.

However, there's also something called Hyper-identity politics. Hyper-identity politics refers to an intensified form of identity politics where the focus on specific social, cultural, or personal identities becomes so dominant that it can overshadow broader discussions, commonalities, or pragmatic goals. This term often carries a critical connotation, suggesting an overemphasis on identity categories to the point where dialogue, compromise, or shared understanding becomes difficult.

Imperial Paradox

The irony of those who nostalgically hark back to the days of empire while opposing multiculturalism lies in the inseparable link between imperial history and the diverse societies it has created. Winston Churchill famously said he didn't want to preside over the end of the British Empire, but his actions toward India showed that he looked down on the people who lived there.

Empires, by their very nature, involved the conquest, colonisation, and governance of diverse peoples across vast swathes of the globe. These imperial connections facilitated the movement of goods, ideas, and, crucially, people. The migration that occurred during and after the imperial era was often a direct result of the opportunities and upheavals created by empire itself. Yet, many who romanticise the power and prestige of empire seem to overlook this historical reality and reject the multicultural legacy it left behind.

This tension is particularly evident in countries like the UK, where imperial nostalgia often coexists with hostility toward immigration. The idea of the British Empire as a pinnacle of civilisation and global influence is celebrated by some, yet they resist the consequences of that history - namely, the multicultural communities that were forged through colonial relationships. Immigrants from former colonies, such as India, Pakistan, and the Caribbean, were encouraged or enabled to move to the UK to rebuild the nation after World War II and to contribute to its economy. However, their presence is now frequently criticised by those who glorify the very empire that established these transnational connections.

The contradiction is even more striking when one considers the pride that empire advocates take in the spread of British culture, values, and institutions across the world. They celebrate the global influence of the English language, the parliamentary system, and British customs while rejecting the reciprocal influence of other cultures on Britain itself. This selective memory overlooks the mutual exchange that empire inevitably involved and denies the contributions of multiculturalism to modern society, from cuisine and art to scientific and economic achievements.

Ultimately, this paradox highlights a refusal to reckon honestly with the full legacy of empire. Celebrating empire without acknowledging its responsibilities and consequences is a simplistic and selective reading of history. Multiculturalism is not an accidental by-product of empire; it is one of its most enduring legacies. 

To embrace the past while rejecting its present consequences reveals a deep inconsistency and a reluctance to accept the interconnectedness of historical and contemporary realities. It is a hypocrisy wrapped in denial: yearning for a world-spanning empire while balking at the inevitable mingling of people and cultures it created. To demand the fruits of empire without the responsibilities is not just irony - it is historical amnesia laced with self-serving arrogance.

Westonbirt

Despite living only 20 minutes away from Westonbirt National Arboretum, I've never visited before. A couple of friends of ours are members and bought us a couple of tickets last weekend.

The photo below is of the Great Oak Hall.

And below is a bee hotel I found in the shop - easy enough to make from some old decking I have, which already has the necessary grooves.

We were a little too late in the year to catch the trees starting to turn into their autumnal hues, but impressive nonetheless. Reminded me of the opening of The Moody Blues song, The Dream.

When the white eagle of the North is flying overhead, 

The browns, reds and golds of autumn lie in the gutter, dead, 

Remember then, that summer birds with wings of fire flaying, 

Come to witness spring's new hope, born of leaves decaying, 

As new life will come from death, love will come at leisure, 

Love of love, love of life and giving without measure, 

Gives in return a wondrous yearn of a promise almost seen, 

Live hand-in-hand and together we'll stand on the threshold of a dream.

Irony

Am I the only one to have notices the irony?

Donald Trump, who has often dismissed climate change as a hoax, has appointed Elon Musk - a leading advocate for electric vehicles and sustainable energy - to his administration. It's akin to a fast-food mogul hiring a vegan chef to revamp the menu.

 

It's like appointing a teetotaler as the head of a brewery, having a cat oversee a dog show or Dracula having a garlic farmer manage his estate. Trump, who once suggested that rising sea levels would simply create "more oceanfront property," now collaborates with Musk, whose life's work focuses on reducing carbon emissions. 

Perhaps this is Trump's version of The Apprentice: Climate Edition. "Elon, your task is to promote electric cars while convincing everyone that climate change isn't real. Bonus points if you can make a coal-powered Tesla. You're hired!"

It's not as if Musk is the only example - Trump seems set on installing a kakistocracy as his cabinet. One thing you can guarantee is that they'll all turn on him, just like the previous lot.

Instructions

I had an opportunity to use a mini-router / trimmer I bought in the spring / summer on e-Bay (I think) and tried to put it together using the instructions.

Have a read yourself (click to enlarge).

Why refer to a screw as A or B, when it's not listed as such on the bloody diagram, but given a number? Why not simply use the numbers that are on the diagram?

The screw 2 isn't even given a letter or a number in the instructions and is referred to simply as 'the screw'. What the hell '(1mm/round)' means is a mystery.

Who writes these things?

It's all academic anyway, as the dressing roller flew off somewhere into the nether regions of my workshop on first usage, never to be seen again. Tried hunting for it with a magnet, but to no avail.

GT6 Chassis

I spotted a renovated Spitfire Mk IV chassis (same as GT6 Mk3) with mods made to the rear axle, as well as the front suspension having been fully rebuilt. The owner has too many projects on and needs to get rid of it.

The rear axle has been replaced, rather professionally, with one from a Mazda MX5. 

Using a Mazda MX-5 rear axle on a Triumph GT6 Mk3 can offer several potential benefits, or so I discovered, in terms of handling, reliability, and modernisation:

• The MX-5 rear axle has an Independent Rear Suspension setup compared to the original Triumph swing axle. The original GT6 swing axle can suffer from camber change during hard cornering, leading to tuck-in and potential oversteer. The MX-5’s IRS design provides more consistent camber and better stability in corners.
• Many Mazda MX-5 models come with a limited slip differential as standard or as an option, which can improve traction, especially in spirited driving or on uneven surfaces. This is particularly beneficial for performance builds. This one has an LSD.
• Parts for the MX-5 are more readily available and affordable compared to original GT6 parts, making maintenance easier and possibly cheaper in the long run.
• The MX-5 rear axle setup can accommodate modern, disc brake upgrades, offering better stopping power and safety compared to the original drum brakes often found on classic Triumphs.
• Swapping to a more modern axle can help with weight distribution, especially when combined with the lighter materials and design of the Mazda rear. This can improve the overall balance of the car, enhancing its agility.
• The MX-5 axle is built with more modern materials and engineering, making it potentially more robust and suited to high-torque applications, should I be increasing the GT6’s power output at any future stage.

It will save me a lot of time on my rebuild, as well as bringing the handling into the 21st century. I do like originality, but if a mod has definite advantages, then I'm all for it. Additionally this mod is hidden under the tub. There would be a little work in setting tub fixing studs, but nothing too major. Cost? £800, which is a steal, as a well renovated chassis on its own can cost that much, and I get both the rebuilt front suspension and the modded rear axle.

I made a commitment to it with a 10% deposit and just need to organise the recovery truck from work to collect it. Part of the cost could be recouped by selling my existing chassis which, if in good condition, should fetch at least half of the outlay for the one advertised. In any case, I'm not too keen on stitching the new front section on to my chassis, as the slightest error in positioning would result in endless problems aligning the bonnet. I am, after all, a measure once (if at all) and regret forever type of person, rather than a measure 3 times and cut once type of person.

I'm also thinking of getting a totally new loom made up. A new one would come with all the correct connectors and circuit breaks (or potential circuit breaks) would be eliminated. They're not prohibitively expensive at £382. 

Just as an aside, the company providing new looms also does looms for Mercedes R129s. There's not one listed for an 500SL and the nearest is for a 350SL - at over £900. I would imagine a 500SL would be over £1,000, meaning I got a good deal on the £650 one from Germany, despite the customs dues. I'm hoping the 500SL will be in the road before next spring. The problem then will be finding space for it - we have the Galaxy, the Peugeot Partner, the Hyundai i10, the motorhome and the GT6.

Match of the Mitre

This BBC headline confused me at first, but got me thinking.

It would be quite amusing to see the disgraced Justin Welby and Gary Lineker swap roles. Imagine the Archbishop stepping into the Match of the Day studio, while Lineker, tie-less and all smiles, takes to the pulpit in Canterbury Cathedral. It’s a pairing nobody asked for, but everyone would secretly love to watch. 

Transparent Purchase

 Done it again - made an impulse purchase on Facebook Marketplace.

37 glass blocks that a chap was selling because his wife no longer liked the partition wall. There were 38, but he broke one before I called to collect them.

Glass block walls are so '80s and rather retro. I can see them coming back into vogue in a nostalgic way.

They first became popular in the 1930s during the Art Deco period, prized for their ability to let light in while maintaining privacy. They were especially popular in commercial and industrial buildings, offering a blend of functionality and style. The blocks were often used in facades, stairwells, and even flooring, where the unique, patterned glass could provide structural stability while diffusing natural light. 

The popularity of glass block walls saw a resurgence in the mid-1980s, when they became a staple in modernist and minimalist interior designs. Many homes and offices began incorporating them as room dividers, bathroom walls, or accent features, using them as a statement piece to evoke a retro aesthetic. 

While they’re less commonly used today, glass blocks are still appreciated in niche designs for their light-diffusing quality and vintage charm. I had to smuggle them into my workshop and will 'fess-up to Hay imminently, although I think she'd like them as a feature in the garden, possibly around the pond. 

Not bad for £50; however, they're probably destined to remain in storage for at least a couple of years before Hay sells them again.

Quality Yuk

That time of year again - you get seduced into buying a box of Quality Street and end up with a load of choccies at the bottom that you don't like.

It's the chocolate and toffee ones that attract me, but I spit out the ones that turn out to be coconut or some hideous raspberry or orange concoction.

Why do I do it?

Amsterdam

The media is almost universally describing the events in Amsterdam as anti-Semitic; however, if one looks at the timeline in this NY Times article, it's anything but - before and after a Europa League match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv, tensions and violence erupted due to a combination of provocative actions and politically charged responses. The timeline is there and one has to read the entire article to piece it together.

This timeline is starting to creep into other reporting, such as the BBC, but it's hidden deep into the article.

Here's the timeline that's now emerging:

• Pre-Match Events: Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters engaged in provocative behaviour, including chanting anti-Arab slogans, tearing down Palestinian flags, and burning one. A taxi was also attacked. These actions coincided with a pro-Palestinian demonstration elsewhere in the city, creating a charged atmosphere.
• Match Day: Clashes occurred between Maccabi supporters, local residents, and activists in central Amsterdam, escalating tensions further. During the match, Ajax won 5-0, and no major incidents were reported inside the stadium.
• Post-Match Violence: Following the game, confrontations targeted Israeli supporters, some of which appeared politically motivated, stemming from the earlier provocations. The violence resulted in injuries and arrests, with the Israeli government labelling it antisemitic. However, the evidence suggests the motivations were more anti-Israel, driven by the actions of the supporters and their symbolism, rather than racial or religious hatred.

In summary, the violence was primarily instigated by the provocative actions of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters and was met with politically charged responses. While some have labelled the events anti-Semitic, the motivations seem more closely tied to opposition to Israeli symbols and actions rather than hatred of Jews as a group.

There's no denying that the Israeli government, and many Israeli institutions, are describing criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic as a way of silencing criticism. Critics contend that this conflation can sometimes be a deliberate strategy to delegitimise opposition. Whether seen as gaslighting or a defensive response to genuine threats, the distinction between critiquing Israel and anti-Semitism is vital for fostering honest and productive discussions.

Going for an Indian

It's a fact that the vast majority of what we call "Indian restaurants" are in actually owned by Muslim Bangladeshis or, especially in cities, Pakistanis, and it strikes me that it must be rather galling for the Pakistanis to have to call them Indian, especially as there are tensions between India and Pakistan. There again, Pakistan didn't exist before partition and the whole subcontinent was called India - British India.

The "Indian restaurant" label emerged largely in the West due to the generalised understanding of South Asian food as "Indian," stemming from early diasporic influences, mainly from Bangladesh. Yet, it risks erasing the rich diversity of Pakistani cuisine, which has its own unique flavours and techniques. This branding can be frustrating, as it may force them to conform to a label that doesn’t fully represent their cultural heritage or the unique character of their dishes.

Some restaurateurs have begun explicitly branding their establishments as Pakistani to educate diners and highlight the diversity within South Asian cuisine. Pakistani and Indian cuisines, while sharing certain spices and ingredients, have distinct characteristics shaped by regional cultures, climates, and historical influences. 

Pakistani food often centres around meat, particularly lamb, beef, and chicken, influenced by Persian, Afghan, and Central Asian tastes. Indian cuisine, by contrast, offers a broader range of vegetarian dishes due to Hindu cultural influences, alongside regional diversity with staples like rice in the south and wheat in the north. 

Pakistani dishes often use simpler spice combinations, aiming for depth of flavour, while Indian cooking frequently incorporates complex spice blends and varies widely by region, from the fiery curries of the south to the milder, creamier dishes of the north.

Waze Voice

Have any other Waze users experienced glitches in the voice directions?

For about a week, the voice instructions have become demonic. The voice, which is normally female, occasionally changes mid sentence to a male voice, which can be very disconcerting. I thought my phone had become possessed.

I asked a work colleague and he said it has happened to him too, so it's not a glitch solely on my phone. This has happened in the past and seems to be a server-side issue.

Inheritance Tax on Farms

The recently announced changes to APR (Agricultural Property Relief) on farmland for Inheritance Tax purposes brings farms under the same rules as BPR (Business Property Relief). Many would argue that's only fair, and certainly a lot better than you or I would get.

If wealthy landowners decide to sell farmland due to the reduced tax benefits, we could see several shifts in the agricultural property market and farming sector.

With more farmland hitting the market, the supply would increase, which could drive prices down. Fewer wealthy buyers looking to purchase land purely for tax reasons would ease the competition, allowing prices to stabilize or even decrease. The demand from non-farming buyers would also likely fall, meaning land would be valued more realistically based on its farming potential. While farmland prices will still vary by location or soil quality, the overall trend could be lower price barriers as investors back off.

As land becomes more affordable, new farmers or smaller operations would have a better chance of buying land that was previously out of reach. Smaller family-run farms could thrive more easily, as there would be less competition from large investors driving up prices. This shift could also encourage younger or new farmers to get involved, particularly with lower land costs and potential government support, such as grants or programs aimed at helping them get started.

With land prices decreasing, many farms might fall below the inheritance tax thresholds, making it easier for small and medium-sized family farms to survive without facing high tax bills. The Agricultural Property Relief could also become more beneficial for smaller farms, allowing genuine farming operations to avoid hefty taxes. This would be a shift from the past when APR was often used by investors as a tax dodge.

Without the heavy involvement of tax-motivated investors, the market would likely shift to a focus on farmland’s actual agricultural value and its potential for sustainable farming. Land prices might reflect real productivity instead of being driven by speculative investment. The government could also offer more support to new farmers, which would help boost rural economies and drive agricultural innovation.

In the end, the departure of tax-driven investors could lead to a more balanced farmland market. With prices reflecting the true value for farming, it would be easier for new farmers to enter the market, small farms could avoid inheritance tax struggles, and the agricultural sector could move toward a more sustainable future.

In any case, there are other reliefs available that take the limit closer to £3m, rather than the headline figure of £1m, and the 7 year gift rule still applies. The NFU, being a lobby group for farmers, is likely to use figures that support their arguments and not include other available reliefs, so I would take their arguments with a pinch of salt. 

As for the right wing press, they're in the business of persuading the public that it's in their interests for the wealthy to retain their money and pay very little tax - tax which has to be made up by the very public they're gaslighting. They're actually quite successful in this and manage to whip up a storm from people who don't engage their brains and consider implications and consequences.

We knew the country's finances were in a parlous state and public services are crumbling. We were told before the election that would require taxes. Where on earth do people think this tax money is coming from - a magic money tree? 

OBD-Be-Doo

Back in April I bought an OBD scanner to diagnose any problems with my own cars or any cars I'm sent to collect from auction houses or private sellers. Nice bit of kit for £35, but you can't dial in the particular car you're testing, and so not all error codes are shown. It's also a tad bulky.

I wondered whether there was a Bluetooth OBD plug that would work with an App on my phone and, behold, there was. 

The App allows me to dial in the particular car  model I'm diagnosing, just like professional scanners that cost several hundred quid.

The Bluetooth OBD plug is around £16 on Amazon and the App is under £5 (if you don't want adverts) and it's a lot less bulky that a dedicated scanner. Heartily recommended for the tinkerer.

However, along with miniaturisation there's the attendant risk of losing it - which I accomplished. I knew it was definitely either in one of the cars or in the house - took me half a day to find the bloody thing. I think I'll put it in a big box.....

Democratic Fascism

The election in America got me thinking about Democratic Fascism, not a term you hear that much, if at all, but it's currently a choice in the USA. There's Democratic Socialism, so surely there's an argument that Democratic Fascism is a political 'thing'.

Democratic socialism and democratic fascism represent contrasting ways to merge democracy with broader ideological visions, each carrying unique benefits and inherent risks. 

Democratic socialism seeks to create a fairer society by combining democratic governance with socialist principles, including the social ownership of key industries, extensive welfare systems, and strong protections for workers’ rights. 

In this model, democratic processes ensure a more equitable distribution of resources and power, aiming to foster a socially just, inclusive society. Countries influenced by democratic socialism, such as Norway and Sweden, balance free-market practices with social protections to create stable, inclusive communities. However, critics argue that democratic socialism risks expanding government control over the economy, which can stifle private enterprise and innovation if not carefully balanced, potentially leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies and a dependency on state-provided services.

Democratic fascism, though not widely practised or fully cohesive as an ideology, might describe a system where democratic elements are preserved only as a façade to legitimise authoritarian power. 

In this structure, democratic mechanisms, such as elections, might be maintained but serve primarily to support a strong central authority that promotes nationalism, social cohesion, and state loyalty. By placing the state's ideals above individual freedoms, this model risks eroding democratic values under the guise of unity and order. 

Democratic fascism might lead to restrictions on civil liberties, a tightly controlled economy aligned with state goals, and limited political plurality, ultimately concentrating power in a manner that contradicts democratic principles. This system could easily slide into full authoritarianism if checks on power are eroded, leading to potential abuses of authority, suppression of dissent, and marginalisation of minority voices.

Russia exhibits characteristics that could, in some respects, align with aspects of democratic fascism. Russia formally maintains democratic structures, including regular elections, a constitution, and multiple political parties, but many observers argue that these institutions primarily serve to legitimise a centralised, authoritarian government rather than genuinely uphold democratic principles.

An historical precedent that mirrors some aspects of democratic fascism is the Roman Republic’s system of appointing a temporary dictator during crises. In emergencies, the Roman Senate could grant near-total power to a single individual, aiming to secure the state by overriding democratic processes temporarily. Although the dictatorship was meant to be time-bound and return to democratic rule after six months, the system exemplifies the dangers of concentrating authority, even temporarily, in a democratic society. 

Early Roman dictators like Cincinnatus, Marcus Furius Camillus, Aulus Postumius Tubertus, and Quintus Servilius Priscus upheld the tradition of the dictatorship as a temporary role, appointed to resolve specific crises and then relinquishing power back to the Senate. They exemplified the Roman ideal that dictatorship was a service to the Republic, not a path to personal power. Over time, however, this tradition eroded, with figures like Sulla and Julius Caesar using the role to secure long-term control, leading to the end of the Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.

In essence, democratic socialism seeks to deepen democracy through equitable resource distribution, while democratic fascism, if realised, could utilise democratic structures to entrench state control. Both approaches reveal the inherent tension between democracy and state power: while democratic socialism risks bureaucratic overreach, democratic fascism risks eroding personal freedoms and descending into authoritarianism. 

The Roman model of dictatorship serves as an historical lesson, illustrating how even well-intended concentrations of power in a democratic system can lead to unintended consequences, highlighting the importance of safeguarding democratic values even amidst ideological pursuits.

It's interesting to note that for a short while, post 1943, there was a Democratic Fascist Party in Italy. It was not, however, democratic, but used the word to distinguish itself from Mussolini's more rigid fascism. 

Populism

Both the far right and far left are often perceived as fringe movements, positioned outside the bounds of "acceptable" society. Yet, they often arise from within society itself, surfacing when people feel unrepresented, ignored, or left behind by mainstream institutions. These extremes can act as expressions of discontent, highlighting societal grievances on issues like economic inequality, perceived cultural erosion, or political disenfranchisement. 

Fascism, often linked to the far right but with traits that can emerge across ideologies, embodies a radical response to perceived societal decline, promising order and identity in place of complexity and compromise. 

Dismissing these movements as mere outliers ignores their roots in real societal anxieties, shared by individuals feeling unheard or powerless. Recognising these extremes as part of society rather than external to it may be uncomfortable, yet it’s crucial to address the underlying grievances that give them traction if we are to foster a more inclusive and resilient social fabric. 

These people are us, but with different concerns.

Ignoring the concerns of the far right poses several dangers that can ultimately destabilise society. Here are the key risks which are already prevalent in the West.

• Dismissing the far right’s concerns can deepen divisions within society, driving people further toward extremes rather than encouraging balanced discourse. 
• When people feel ignored, they may lose faith in democratic processes, leading to an erosion of trust in institutions and a rise in anti-democratic sentiments. 
• Marginalising the far right can create an echo chamber for conspiracy theories, as those who feel disregarded may turn to alternative sources of information, which can promote unfounded beliefs and radicalisation.
• Ignoring grievances allows extremist leaders to exploit these issues, positioning themselves as the only "truth-tellers" addressing legitimate problems and recruiting followers more easily.
• If left unaddressed, grievances may be expressed through increasingly hostile rhetoric, normalising hate speech or even leading to violent actions as frustration mounts.
• When specific groups feel ignored, it can lead to the fragmentation of society, weakening the sense of shared identity and values critical to a stable and inclusive society.

Addressing these concerns openly and inclusively doesn’t mean legitimising extremist views, but rather understanding and engaging with the underlying issues to mitigate the risks associated with political alienation.

America has, tomorrow, a chance to show the world whether its citizens understand the danger posed by populists. Half of them will rejoice in showing they don't by voting for someone who is demonstrably not at all concerned with their problems and wants power for power's sake. 

Trump has been compared with Homelander, the narcissistic superhero from Netflix's The Boys.

• Both figures have an intense need for public adulation. They go to great lengths to maintain their image and popularity, treating loyalty as a measure of personal success and validation. 
• Both present a carefully crafted public image that’s markedly different from their private reality. Homelander projects himself as a noble hero, while privately, he is ruthless and indifferent. Similarly, Trump’s public persona as a champion of the people contrasts with the criticisms of self-interest and questionable personal conduct. 
• Each wields the media as a tool for influence, skilfully bending narratives to their favour. Homelander uses his superhero image to control public perception, and Trump leverages social media and news to project his viewpoints and rally his base. 
• Both are combative when faced with criticism, often responding with hostility or dismissing opposition as illegitimate. This approach fuels their supporters but creates a polarising “us vs. them” dynamic. 
• Both exhibit a belief in their own exceptionalism. Homelander’s superpowers place him above others in a literal sense, while Trump’s confidence in his own vision and actions often reflects a similar conviction of being "different" or “superior” in his field. 

These parallels highlight their shared traits of self-aggrandisement, media mastery, and the careful curation of public image combined with a deep need for validation.

English Wales

On Friday I had to collect a car in Carmarthenshire, but transposed a couple of letters in the postcode and ended up some 5 or 6 miles from where I was meant to be, but what a find!

I found myself in a place called Laugharne. Not only in Laugharne, but at a vantage point above the town that gave a beautiful view over the Taf estuary and Laugharne Castle.

There are some villages and towns in Wales where the inhabitants are mainly English speakers, and you can tell by the architecture and colour of the buildings. Many Welsh villages are, for some inexplicable reason, in love with grey pebbledash, which is drab and unwelcoming, but the historically English speaking towns and villages look very much English and abound with Georgian buildings in various pastel shades. 

Laugharne is one of those towns, as are Crickhowell, Beaumaris, Monmouth, Chepstow and Hay on Wye - islands of Englishness in a sea of Welshness. Some of these are understandable, as they're border towns, but many are deep in Wales.