Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 5]
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
Halmyre said:
Dr Jekyll said:
How are removed cousins calculated?
If I share a great grandparent with someone they are a second cousin, fine.
Which I think makes their offspring my second cousin once removed.
But from the offspring's point of view the common ancestor is a great great grandparent. So am I their third cousin? Or we both second cousins once removed? Or both third cousins?
Removed cousins are a generation up or down. Your cousin's offspring are first cousins once removed. If I share a great grandparent with someone they are a second cousin, fine.
Which I think makes their offspring my second cousin once removed.
But from the offspring's point of view the common ancestor is a great great grandparent. So am I their third cousin? Or we both second cousins once removed? Or both third cousins?
coppernorks said:
talksthetorque said:
Original Questionner will not respond as they are now watching cats being scared by cucumbers and will be for the foreseeable.
Have we an answer why cats freak out at the sight of cucumbers ?SpeckledJim said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Trackdayer said:
Why do Booker / Makro care if customers run a business or not?
Because they don't want it full of retail customers who expect a retail establishment. They are cheaper because they cater to a different customer. If you allowed retail customers in you would have a retail experience and retai! prices.
Doofus said:
Doofus said:
I genuinely can't even understand the diagram.
It's all f
king bonkers, and almost never matters.
Who decided all this: a genealogist, a lawyer or a literary wit?
After some study, I have concluded that I can't understand the diagram because it's actually wrong.It's all f
king bonkers, and almost never matters.Who decided all this: a genealogist, a lawyer or a literary wit?
Halmyre said:
Doofus said:
Doofus said:
I genuinely can't even understand the diagram.
It's all fking bonkers, and almost never matters.
Who decided all this: a genealogist, a lawyer or a literary wit?
After some study, I have concluded that I can't understand the diagram because it's actually wrong.It's all f
king bonkers, and almost never matters.Who decided all this: a genealogist, a lawyer or a literary wit?
SpeckledJim said:
Because when negotiating good prices with their suppliers they agree with their suppliers to only sell in bulk, to the trade, to avoid upsetting their suppliers’ other customers?
98elise said:
They also don't want queues of retail customers buying £10 of worth of individual items holding up business customers buying £200 of stuff by the case.
They are cheaper because they cater to a different customer. If you allowed retail customers in you would have a retail experience and retai! prices.
Exactly. And £200 is at the lower end too.They are cheaper because they cater to a different customer. If you allowed retail customers in you would have a retail experience and retai! prices.
Well, I think we have comprehensively answered that question.
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 10th June 09:32
StevieBee said:
Why do people get so worked up on constituency boundary changes. Is it a tribal thing?... "I live in this town - not the town used to denote the Constituency".
Because in overly simple terms, they're typically used by the sitting Government to improve their chances of re-election. They can shift areas that typically don't vote for them into a constituency they either hold a strong majority, or stand no chance to win anyway etc. Consider the most recent planned changes, reducing the number of MPs in Scotland and Wales where the Conservatives don't perform by 10, and increasing them in the South East of England where they do, also the way they're making changes in London will mostly favour the Tories.
It's all decided by the Boundaries Commission who are supposed to be independent, their leader is theoretically the Speaker of the House (Sir Lindsay Hoyle Labour) but "but by convention he or she does not participate in the conduct of a constituencies review or formulation of the Commission’s recommendations." So it falls to The Deputy Chair (Justice Peter Lane) who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor (Robert Buckland MP for Swindon, Conservative).
Whether it bothers you, might depend on who you usually vote for, but is it democratic that the sitting Government can appoint someone who can tailor boundaries and even move whole seats to give them an advantage next time around?
P-Jay said:
Because in overly simple terms, they're typically used by the sitting Government to improve their chances of re-election. They can shift areas that typically don't vote for them into a constituency they either hold a strong majority, or stand no chance to win anyway etc.
Indeed. It's called Gerrymandering and Tony Blair's Labour government were particularly guilty of it. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
P-Jay said:
StevieBee said:
Why do people get so worked up on constituency boundary changes. Is it a tribal thing?... "I live in this town - not the town used to denote the Constituency".
Because in overly simple terms, they're typically used by the sitting Government to improve their chances of re-election. They can shift areas that typically don't vote for them into a constituency they either hold a strong majority, or stand no chance to win anyway etc. Consider the most recent planned changes, reducing the number of MPs in Scotland and Wales where the Conservatives don't perform by 10, and increasing them in the South East of England where they do, also the way they're making changes in London will mostly favour the Tories.
It's all decided by the Boundaries Commission who are supposed to be independent, their leader is theoretically the Speaker of the House (Sir Lindsay Hoyle Labour) but "but by convention he or she does not participate in the conduct of a constituencies review or formulation of the Commission’s recommendations." So it falls to The Deputy Chair (Justice Peter Lane) who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor (Robert Buckland MP for Swindon, Conservative).
Whether it bothers you, might depend on who you usually vote for, but is it democratic that the sitting Government can appoint someone who can tailor boundaries and even move whole seats to give them an advantage next time around?
The outcome being favourable to the party of government is irrelevant - the key is does it achieve the aims of the review. When some of those constituencies in Scotland/Wales have half the population of those in the South East there's clearly a need for change.
Last boundary review was based upon the 1991 Census... How valid do you reckon that is now?
P-Jay said:
StevieBee said:
Why do people get so worked up on constituency boundary changes. Is it a tribal thing?... "I live in this town - not the town used to denote the Constituency".
Because in overly simple terms, they're typically used by the sitting Government to improve their chances of re-election. They can shift areas that typically don't vote for them into a constituency they either hold a strong majority, or stand no chance to win anyway etc. Consider the most recent planned changes, reducing the number of MPs in Scotland and Wales where the Conservatives don't perform by 10, and increasing them in the South East of England where they do, also the way they're making changes in London will mostly favour the Tories.
It's all decided by the Boundaries Commission who are supposed to be independent, their leader is theoretically the Speaker of the House (Sir Lindsay Hoyle Labour) but "but by convention he or she does not participate in the conduct of a constituencies review or formulation of the Commission’s recommendations." So it falls to The Deputy Chair (Justice Peter Lane) who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor (Robert Buckland MP for Swindon, Conservative).
Whether it bothers you, might depend on who you usually vote for, but is it democratic that the sitting Government can appoint someone who can tailor boundaries and even move whole seats to give them an advantage next time around?
It is potentially open to the most outrageous fiddles, but then leaving it the same for all time is hardly fair either.
IINM, the Tories need (on average of course) to win more votes to win a seat than Labour does. Happy to stand corrected on that, can't remember where I read it.
Doofus said:
Halmyre said:
Doofus said:
Doofus said:
I genuinely can't even understand the diagram.
It's all fking bonkers, and almost never matters.
Who decided all this: a genealogist, a lawyer or a literary wit?
After some study, I have concluded that I can't understand the diagram because it's actually wrong.It's all f
king bonkers, and almost never matters.Who decided all this: a genealogist, a lawyer or a literary wit?
https://www.legacytree.com/blog/consanguinity-expl...
Halmyre said:
So if I'm reading it properly, it's how close to the common ancestor the one in the earliest generation is that governs what kind of cousin both ways.That means that if my great grandfather is some else's great great grandfather we are each others second cousins but once removed, and any descendants they have are still second cousins.
SpeckledJim said:
P-Jay said:
StevieBee said:
Why do people get so worked up on constituency boundary changes. Is it a tribal thing?... "I live in this town - not the town used to denote the Constituency".
Because in overly simple terms, they're typically used by the sitting Government to improve their chances of re-election. They can shift areas that typically don't vote for them into a constituency they either hold a strong majority, or stand no chance to win anyway etc. Consider the most recent planned changes, reducing the number of MPs in Scotland and Wales where the Conservatives don't perform by 10, and increasing them in the South East of England where they do, also the way they're making changes in London will mostly favour the Tories.
It's all decided by the Boundaries Commission who are supposed to be independent, their leader is theoretically the Speaker of the House (Sir Lindsay Hoyle Labour) but "but by convention he or she does not participate in the conduct of a constituencies review or formulation of the Commission’s recommendations." So it falls to The Deputy Chair (Justice Peter Lane) who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor (Robert Buckland MP for Swindon, Conservative).
Whether it bothers you, might depend on who you usually vote for, but is it democratic that the sitting Government can appoint someone who can tailor boundaries and even move whole seats to give them an advantage next time around?
It is potentially open to the most outrageous fiddles, but then leaving it the same for all time is hardly fair either.
IINM, the Tories need (on average of course) to win more votes to win a seat than Labour does. Happy to stand corrected on that, can't remember where I read it.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff