The Butterfly Effect: A British AAR

[TheButterflyComposer]

Don't let anyone ever say this AAR is relentlessly anti-American, for I have just saved America's "Queen of the Air" from her OTL early death, which must be worth a few star spangled brownie points?

Probably going to boost amercian flight tech and development in some capacity. Unless you're building up to her fading into obscurity and dying impoverished in some alleyway somewhere...

 

[El Pip]

Probably going to boost amercian flight tech and development in some capacity. Unless you're building up to her fading into obscurity and dying impoverished in some alleyway somewhere...

Earhart was by all accounts a great pilot, brave and skilled at promotion and publicity, but a bit weak on the tech side. Seems to be fairly common among aerial pioneers I think - if you really knew how the planes worked (or didn't) then you would know how risky the flights were and wouldn't take them.

It would probably be for the best if she did not influence US flight development, you don't want "ace pilots" setting requirements as then when average pilots have to use them it all goes wrong. Plus her views on what was / was not important in an aircraft were a bit questionable; certainly she may have regretted removing the long range radio aerial and Direction Finding equipment on her plane (to save weight) when she was lost over the South Pacific unable to make reliable radio contact with anyone.

If I'm honest she may never appear in this AAR at all, she was a US cultural icon not a global one and it is my current policy to make sure evey update has some link back to Britain. If a record breaking, pioneer Aviatrix is required for some reason then Amy Johnson is available and properly British, so I'd use her instead.

 

[Sir Charles Dewitt]

Don't let anyone ever say this AAR is relentlessly anti-American, for I have just saved America's "Queen of the Air" from her OTL early death, which must be worth a few star spangled brownie points?

It most certainly is...

I wonder if she'll try to become a fighter ace during the war... Probably not but it'd be funny.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

It most certainly is...

I wonder if she'll try to become a fighter ace during the war... Probably not but it'd be funny.

You can use her like that in hoi4, or have her in the air ministry.

 

[El Pip]

I wonder if she'll try to become a fighter ace during the war... Probably not but it'd be funny.

Sadly transport command beckons. Maybe route proving for newly required air route or, at a real push, evaluating prototypes.

And of course deflection shooting is, by all accounts, quite tricky. Aces tended to be hunters, gamekeepers or otherwise familiar with guns in their pre-war lives - leading a target is not something that comes naturally and is in no way correlated with flying ability.

You can use her like that in hoi4, or have her in the air ministry.

Of course you can. My decisions not to go HOI4 is looking wiser by the day.


In update news; New Zealand has put all their Hansard online, which is nice. But they have done so in massive 1200pg+ long PDFs that only cover a couple of months, are an utter pig to use and are functionally unsearchable. I may soon give up on trying to understand the Kiwi position on certain issues and just start using the force to work out a best guess.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Of course you can. My decisions not to go HOI4 is looking wiser by the day.

I rather wish they had a ckii standard where the base game is rather good at simulating feudal Europe circa 1066, and options to turn all the absurdist stuff on, and options to REALLY camp it up.

As it stands, hoi4 is in an awkward middle ground where it sort of wants to have fun and have amelia in the air ministry and such a thing as the unaligned States of amercia (yes really) but also be rather serious at simulating actual history and plausible alt-history.

I want to play Amelia as president of the holy american empire and watch hitler become a celebrated artist in a restored austria hungarian empire, and watch the emu empire fight the unholy zombies of Shangri-la. But a proper simulation would be nice too.

In update news; New Zealand has put all their Hansard online, which is nice. But they have done so in massive 1200pg+ long PDFs that only cover a couple of months, are an utter pig to use and are functionally unsearchable. I may soon give up on trying to understand the Kiwi position on certain issues and just start using the force to work out a best guess.

Idk, can't you just be as the most pious mediecal chronicler and make it up? Who's going to check the Canterbury Papers, Winchester? (Spit).

 

[Cromwell]

Woe is me, when I saw your post in notifications I thought we had an update!

I wish I had a musical talent we could see another update song as we read in the days of yore...

 

[Wraith11B]

What is Hansard?

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

What is Hansard?

Huge database for gov documents. The UK but has pretty much everything ever written or presented in both houses of Parliament. A tremendous research.

 

[El Pip]

I rather wish they had a ckii standard where the base game is rather good at simulating feudal Europe circa 1066, and options to turn all the absurdist stuff on, and options to REALLY camp it up.

As it stands, hoi4 is in an awkward middle ground where it sort of wants to have fun and have amelia in the air ministry and such a thing as the unaligned States of amercia (yes really) but also be rather serious at simulating actual history and plausible alt-history.

I want to play Amelia as president of the holy american empire and watch hitler become a celebrated artist in a restored austria hungarian empire, and watch the emu empire fight the unholy zombies of Shangri-la. But a proper simulation would be nice too.

I thought they had gone for full on crazy simulator from the start to be honest. The whole Australian "Empire of the Platypus" and communist Luxembourg being called "Rosa Luxembourg" made it pretty clear that was the intent. Any actual serious or plausible simulator appears to be entirely accidental.

Idk, can't you just be as the most pious mediecal chronicler and make it up? Who's going to check the Canterbury Papers, Winchester? (Spit).

Standards dear sir, standards. They are what you maintain when no-one is watching.

Woe is me, when I saw your post in notifications I thought we had an update!

I wish I had a musical talent we could see another update song as we read in the days of yore...

@Davout is clearly otherwise engaged, he is my normal go-to reader for musical matters.

What is Hansard?

Database for gov documents. The UK but has pretty much everything ever written or presented in both houses of Parliament. A tremendous research.

This basically. It is not completely verbatim, but all it misses out repetitions, standing orders, that sort of thing. It also has all the ministerial written answers and voting records. Similar to the US Congressional Records if they are more familiar?

In any event the name transferred to the rest of the Empire so most places with a Westminster style parliamentary system (and some who don't) will call their records Hansard. Some countries are like the UK and have got fully digitised, searchable and indexed records which are wonderful to use, while other countries are... New Zealand... and have made a complete hash of things.

 

[Le Jones]

This basically. It is not completely verbatim, but all it misses out repetitions, standing orders, that sort of thing. It also has all the ministerial written answers and voting records.

I also love how it occasionally 'doesn't quite catch' what was said, particularly swear words or anything prohibited by the rules of conduct (overt criticism of the monarch is a good example). The Treasury Solicitors (the guys in wigs and gowns under the Speaker) have very selective hearing.

I would also add that Hansard is used, daily, in the Courts. If you're arguing, particularly at appellate level, on the meaning of legislation, you often need to scrutinise debates to glean Parliament's intent. Yup, we still do that in 2020...

 

[El Pip]

I would also add that Hansard is used, daily, in the Courts. If you're arguing, particularly at appellate level, on the meaning of legislation, you often need to scrutinise debates to glean Parliament's intent. Yup, we still do that in 2020...

Interesting. I understood Pepper vs Hart had been somewhat disowned by the courts and referring to Hansard was discouraged, certainly in the TCC that is the case. But then Hansard references are mostly used by one side to try and pretend a word does not have it's obvious meaning (because if it did they would lose) and the TCC seems to have less tolerance for that sort of mucking about than other courts.

 

[Le Jones]

Interesting. I understood Pepper vs Hart had been somewhat disowned by the courts and referring to Hansard was discouraged, certainly in the TCC that is the case. But then Hansard references are mostly used by one side to try and pretend a word does not have it's obvious meaning (because if it did they would lose) and the TCC seems to have less tolerance for that sort of mucking about than other courts.

We still use it, as you rightly say PvH is not in favour in some areas; I'd also add that we're seeing a raft of panicky EU oriented stuff where Hansard will be used, probably to no great effect.

The weirdest use of Hansard that I have seen was a drugs case, in which the substance in question was absent from the Misuse of Drugs Act but was almost identical to the stuff on it. Cue an afternoon working out if this omission was deliberate (it wasn't).

 

[El Pip]

We still use it, as you rightly say PvH is not in favour in some areas; I'd also add that we're seeing a raft of panicky EU oriented stuff where Hansard will be used, probably to no great effect.

The weirdest use of Hansard that I have seen was a drugs case, in which the substance in question was absent from the Misuse of Drugs Act but was almost identical to the stuff on it. Cue an afternoon working out if this omission was deliberate (it wasn't).

The subject is different, but the arguments are familiar.

We mostly get arguments over whether an activity is Construction (which brings in the whole machinery of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act) or if it is just installing equipment (which is exempt). This does lead to the mildly hilarious legal fiction that the House of Commons actually understood enough about the subject to even have an intelligible intent; it is clear from the Hansard quotes that are used that it was the old 'un-reformed' House of Lords that introduced the actually clarifying amendments and useful discussion, while the MPs mostly did not.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

I also love how it occasionally 'doesn't quite catch' what was said, particularly swear words or anything prohibited by the rules of conduct (overt criticism of the monarch is a good example).

Anything to do with sex or christianity is pretty good for rampant *coughing* too. This is especially 'good' if such a thing can be said, when they first got around to talking about sex and young peoples, and possibly potentially letting catholics back into government (maybe, just to throw the thought out there old bean).

I would also add that Hansard is used, daily, in the Courts.

Well...yeah, common law and legal fees by the hour...

referring to Hansard was discouraged,

Much in the same way scouring the constitution for 'facts' from the sacred texts is discouraged...at least in court.

Cue an afternoon working out if this omission was deliberate (it wasn't).

They didn't put a catch all at the end of the list/description??? Or they tried that anyway?

We mostly get arguments over whether an activity is Construction (which brings in the whole machinery of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act) or if it is just installing equipment (which is exempt).

Now this warms my heart, as this is a noble and ancient tradition of the british regarding anything to do with labour of any kind. And they dare to suggest the Age of Romance is dead.

This does lead to the mildly hilarious legal fiction that the House of Commons actually understood enough about the subject to even have an intelligible intent;

It used to be that there would at least be a few lawyer MPs on either side of the party line on both sides that could at a push gently point out when someone was going off the deep end with measures or completely getting it wrong.

I believe there's only a few lawyers in the current House however. Presumably the others are doing more sensible vocations like making a killing out of Brexit and putting up shelves.

it is clear from the Hansard quotes that are used that it was the old 'un-reformed' House of Lords that introduced the actually clarifying amendments and useful discussion, while the MPs mostly did not.

Law Lords. Not always right or useful but comforting to know that its there. Much like BBC 4.

As an aside, you always get the impression Le Jones emeeges from his big sleep or slumber when he appears on the forums, as he appears everywhere at once before vanishing, like a whisper of a shadow.

 

[Le Jones]

As an aside, you always get the impression Le Jones emeeges from his big sleep or slumber when he appears on the forums, as he appears everywhere at once before vanishing, like a whisper of a shadow.

Good morning TBC! All good humour is based in the truth, and this is no exception. And now, back to my cave...

 

[roverS3]

A fascinating read. Of course, the negative health effects of cigarettes and tobacco were already understood by health professionals at the time. (This can be seen in Anton Chekov's "On the Harmful Effects of Tobacco" first published in 1886) That said, this was unimportant to the treasury in an age where state-funded healthcare was non-existent. If one were to look at this entirely cynically, one could argue that nations only started to seriously combat smoking and big tobacco when the ensuing Heathcare bill, paid by the government, became so big that it was barely covered by the combination of tobacco taxes and the reduction in expenditure on pensions due to premature cigarette-related deaths. Just a cold cost-benefit analysis, maybe that's all there is to it.

I do find myself regularly amazed at just how many smokers there still are, even amongst the current generation of university students, most of whom were born after the first big tobacco trials took place, publicising far and wide just how harmful cigarettes are.

 

[El Pip]

They didn't put a catch all at the end of the list/description??? Or they tried that anyway?

If your lawyer cannot find a way to wriggle out of a catch all clause, then get a better lawyer.

Now this warms my heart, as this is a noble and ancient tradition of the british regarding anything to do with labour of any kind. And they dare to suggest the Age of Romance is dead.

Some traditions are too powerful to even contemplate overthrowing.

It used to be that there would at least be a few lawyer MPs on either side of the party line on both sides that could at a push gently point out when someone was going off the deep end with measures or completely getting it wrong.

I believe there's only a few lawyers in the current House however. Presumably the others are doing more sensible vocations like making a killing out of Brexit and putting up shelves.

You believe incorrectly. Percentage of lawyers now is basically identical to the 70/80s, the low point (if that's the right word) was the '97 election and even then it was still 10% of the house. As of 2015 (last election in the data set) it was 14.2% barristers and solicitors. What has changed is the ratio; more solicitors and fewer barristers. I shall leave it to @Le Jones to comment on the significance or otherwise of that.

Law Lords. Not always right or useful but comforting to know that its there. Much like BBC 4.

Indeed, to an extent I miss them as the Supreme Court keeps forgetting where the courts actually sit in the constitution. When they were sitting in the House of Lords, forced into an ancient and archaic costume, I imagine it helps to focus the mind on the bigger picture. Certainly that has always been my experience of such rituals.

As an aside, you always get the impression Le Jones emeeges from his big sleep or slumber when he appears on the forums, as he appears everywhere at once before vanishing, like a whisper of a shadow.

Good morning TBC! All good humour is based in the truth, and this is no exception. And now, back to my cave...

I have always suspected this to be the case and it is good to see it confirmed.

A fascinating read. Of course, the negative health effects of cigarettes and tobacco were already understood by health professionals at the time. (This can be seen in Anton Chekov's "On the Harmful Effects of Tobacco" first published in 1886) That said, this was unimportant to the treasury in an age where state-funded healthcare was non-existent. If one were to look at this entirely cynically, one could argue that nations only started to seriously combat smoking and big tobacco when the ensuing Heathcare bill, paid by the government, became so big that it was barely covered by the combination of tobacco taxes and the reduction in expenditure on pensions due to premature cigarette-related deaths. Just a cold cost-benefit analysis, maybe that's all there is to it.

I believe not, smokers do tend to die of very cheap diseases (as in cheap for the health service not the person) and of course avoid the dizzyingly high costs of care homes. So on a cold cost benefit ratio high enough cigarette taxes will more than cover the costs, with a degree of fudging about ongoing society costs like cigarette breaks and pubs.

That said the efforts by big tobacco to pevert the science, and the willingness of so many scientists, doctors and politicians to go along with it, is a depressing tale.

I do find myself regularly amazed at just how many smokers there still are, even amongst the current generation of university students, most of whom were born after the first big tobacco trials took place, publicising far and wide just how harmful cigarettes are.

It is slightly baffling to me as well. I think the lingering effects of smoking being 'cool' in so many classic movies plays a part perhaps? And the general tendency of some people to just rebel against whatever they are told not to do?

And so we approach the end of the page and the next update is all but done, if we could have a couple more posts to take us up to the line, then we will have a Top of the Page new chapter. In accordance with the Ritual and the Prophecy.

 

[Cromwell]

This is the first I have heard of a prophecy! I hope it was made by reading tea leaves or some other suitably British divination method for the butterfly effect? I have always been against observing the flight of birds, removing a goats liver and other continental innovations.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

If your lawyer cannot find a way to wriggle out of a catch all clause, then get a better lawyer.

If your lawyer is wriggling in a catch all clause, they're padding out their hours before the case collpases.

You believe incorrectly.

oof. Legal journals demonstrate their bias here. When they have columns decrying the absent legal representative in parliament youd assume they mean at all. Apparently what they mean is enough to be a significant minority/everyone in the room.

What has changed is the ratio; more solicitors and fewer barristers. I shall leave it to @Le Jones to comment on the significance or otherwise of that.

Some hunt in packs and some don't. The end result is generally the same: a few dead sheep and a pile of poopy.

When they were sitting in the House of Lords, forced into an ancient and archaic costume, I imagine it helps to focus the mind on the bigger picture.

Presumably it reminded them to be conservative and extremely contemplative in all things, which whilst discouraging of legal evolution, is in the end usually what people want of high court rulings (the status qup upheld if at all possible).

Their decline also cuts down on the legal/poltical usage of 'real' enquiries where you actually want stuff to come out of it, since they were pretty much the only ones you could put as Chair of such a thing. Or to put another way, it makes a joke in Yes Minister slightly out of date which is utterly unacceptable.

I believe not, smokers do tend to die of very cheap diseases (as in cheap for the health service not the person) and of course avoid the dizzyingly high costs of care homes. So on a cold cost benefit ratio high enough cigarette taxes will more than cover the costs, with a degree of fudging about ongoing society costs like cigarette breaks and pubs.

Speaking of out of date...

The general consensus amongst medical professionals seems to be to discourage smoking in any way which increases likelihood of second-hand smoke damage. So in cars with others, indoors with others, with children and elderly in general etc. etc.

But if you go down the path of trying to make elderly care cheaper longterm, as a priority above all else, mandatory life limits start to come up and make the whole thing uncomfortable.

This is the first I have heard of a prophecy! I hope it was made by reading tea leaves or some other suitably British divination method for the butterfly effect? I have always been against observing the flight of birds, removing a goats liver and other continental innovations.

It was supposed to be kept secret. The task for gaining enlightenment of the sacred truth was to read the whole of this AAR, or at least every time Pip bitches about the page top being stolen...by someone who will remain nameless.

QUOTE="El Pip, post: 26756177, member: 51658"]
It is slightly baffling to me as well.
[/QUOTE]

They...might not be smoking tobacco.

In seriousness, there has been a serious decline, even from 2011 compared to 2018, which shows most people seem to take the serious health risks of smoking seriously, and increasingly over time more seriously.

More seriously is that apparently over half the people who do smoke want to quit, or say they do when asked. It remains an astonishingly addictive substance it seems.

We need to boost to the top of the page so, in 100 words or less: everyone's solution to the war on drugs and drug culture in the UK. I emphasis it thus because I have abandoned all hope for our bastard offspring overseas.