Siting of panels for solar water heating

The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

When I was a child I loved searching the local mill dump for what to me were treasures.

A friend and I in the mid 70s used to retrieve Flymos from the dump and make 'em work again. Made a nice income from that which was very welcome to a couple of teenagers.
-- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Guy King wrote:

The message <MsidnSK_-4MAsOjYRVnyuA@pipex.net from Phil Bradshaw <philbradshaw@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike contains these words:
This may be related to 'It is an offence to remove, pick over etc. waste on this site etc. etc. blah blah blah.' at bring (recycling) sites - Greater Manchester anyway.
That's true almost anywhere. The trick is to make sure it doesn't apply to you by being friendly and helpful to the staff.
Indeed. My son spotted some 486 computers in the white goods pile at one

site and did an ask ... and got the nod to whip the CPUs out and a couple of other bits while I gave the site worker a hand sorting metal.

On 2006-12-04 16:39:38 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
If some people really think this is too difficult or takes too long then perhaps they should ask their local waste advisor to give them some advice.
Actually no, it's not that this is difficult in the final analysis but that it is unnecessarily overcomplicated and inconvenient for dubious value.
Well - you couldn't actually do any meaningful separation and have it any simpler !

Then one has to ask whether it is meaningful at all....

I have no idea who a "waste advisor" is. Is it yet another person paid for from council tax with pie in the sky ideas about the rality of what people require?
Well - as you say, you've got no idea.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten the assembled throng so that we can all have a laugh.

I would be very pleased to have a conversation with such a person, but it would be along a few simple lines:
1) How is he going to offer me a choice of disposal services?
2) How is he going to reduce the cost?
3) How is he going to deliver the above with less use of time on my part?
If he has good answers for all of the above, then there is a basis for discussion. If he doesn't, then I will want to know who his boss is and who the budget holder is for his position because he isn't doing his job properly and should be removed from the payroll..
Well - he certainly isn't doing what you want, but may well be doing what he's employed to do.

By whom? Who is paying?

On 2006-12-05 08:10:40 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-12-04 10:29:24 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
Andy Hall wrote:
The whole premise was to have a range of services from a range of providers so that people can choose what they want and with local authorities taken out of the financial path between customer and supplier. If you want to continue as you are then that is accomodated.
That's *your* premise, not mine. Making a range of services from a range of providers available means no one can apply economies of scale
Yes they can, because there is the potential to cover larger geographical areas.
You're missing the point.

No I'm not.

Consider increasing transport costs at a time of what is laughably termed 'energy insecurity'.

I don't accept that the approach does result in increased transport costs. Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling half way around the planet does.

(and someone will have to regulate and inspect the suppliers, but that's another issue, sorry, set of costs).
That can be aggregated and outsourced as well
Hm. I think
I'm perfectly happy to have essential services provided by a single supplier ultimately responsible to me (the electorate).
Fine. I'm not. Your choice is a subset of mine.

Alternatively, you have the option to select products based on the way that the manufacturer does the packaging. It's far better not to have the packaging disposal issue in the first place.
Quite. But until legislation forces it on the manufacturers, their marketing people, combined perhaps with a host of safety regs and transport requirements, and sheer laziness on the part of some consumers ensures the problem will persist.
There already is huge over-regulation in these areas. Adding more is unlikely to alter the behaviour of consumers who want to buy a) on price and b) on the attractiveness of the packaging.
I beg to disagree. If regulation forces manufacturers to reduce their packaging excesses, consumers will have to buy what's available.
I see. So now we have this interference extending into customer choice as well?
Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. Mind you, despite murder being a bad thing for society in general I think I could make a case for it to be legalised in some circumstances.

Never mind about "society". It's a bit of a problem for the victim as well.

If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess, you should certainly have to sort that out yourself.
Why? I pay for rubbish disposal.
And your rubbish is disposed of.
Then I'm happy. I am not happy if I am expected to do part of the supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price or they do the work.
You're not thinking it through.
Yes I am.
I suppose that from your PoV, you are. You are wedded to the outdated notion that competition on the free market <spit> always results in the best of all possible worlds.

Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time. Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will find a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive.

You should get out more, or at least open your eyes and mind.

I get "out" as you put it probably more than you do - spending approx. a third of my time doing so in terms of traveling to different countries and seeing different environments.

As regards your demand that you be absolved from sorting your own rubbish for recycling: put your money where your mouth is.[1] If you think there's a market for the service, start a business supplying it.

At the point that the market is deregulated, that may be an interesting proposition.

If you're too lazy to do that (or have a niggling doubt that there's insufficient demand), hire someone else to do it.

Pointless until there is market deregulation.

But stop proselytising the free market <spit

... are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?

while at the same time demanding that the publicly-funded local authority supply your chosen service at no extra charge (as quoted above "I am not happy if I am expected to do part of the supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price or they do the work.")

At the moment they do provide the service that I am paying for, although not particularly well. At the point that they wish to reduce it by requiring an additional action on my part and not on theirs, it is a reduction in service.

On 2006-12-04 21:56:48 +0000, Pete C said:

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:39:59 +0000, Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam wrote:
I bet you could sort all the recyclable stuff from your rubbish in a tiny fraction of the time you spend posting to uk.d-i-y and worrying about ���� tools.
I *could*. I wish to have the choice not to, but for it to be done by the provider, not to be required to do so.
Well that's the price of living in a more civilised country, and one where the democratically elected local/national government requires you to play a part.

I do play a significant part, through the payment of taxes. I am looking for a return on that.

On 2006-12-05 12:47:07 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:30:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
Then you would be welcome to visit and sort through my dustbin each week.
It would still be more efficient for you to do it.
No it wouldn't. My work time costs considerably more than what it would cost for me to outsource it to a rubbish collection firm.
Have you asked for quotes?

No point because it is not an open market.

Given that there is no impediment to your opting out of the public waste service [1], just as you could opt out of public schooling or health services, then you should be able to get lots of companies who are interested, especially if they are passing your door anyway on the way to industrial customers. I suspect that you will find the quotes are very much lower if you sort the waste into bins for them.

They could well be. I could then make the choice between level of service and the price.

On 2006-12-05 08:09:52 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
The point is that unless the market issues of choice are addressed as well as customers being convinced that proposed courses of action are genuine and have value, then they are not going to buy into the environmental issues to the extent that you might like.
I'm not convinced.

Take a look at the history of trade and it becomes very obvious.

It's true that people need to understand the issues, but I'm not sure we should offer any services that allow lower aggregate standards of environmental performance than we have now. The 'prize' just doesn't justify it.

It isn't an issue of their being a "prize", but rather of there being more than one way to achieve an objective than letting the inefficient public sector handle it.

For most people, the justification for separation and recycling seem to be a separate issue to 'choice'.

I'm not sure. I think that a lot of people think it might be a good idea because of greenwashing rather than properly justified and explained reasons.

Some people are happy to sit back, pay their taxes and let the state run their lives for them.
The state commits bigger crimes than asking you nicely to separate your waste.

Excess taxation being the major one. If they ask nicely, I shall politely decline.

That does not mean that I do not think that activities to protect the environment aren't important, but simply that they need to be presented more honestly than they are being
Not sure that they are generally represented dishonestly...

Too many cases of stupidity based around meeting of political targets. Waste collection is one example of it, healthcare and education are others.

and with the implications as well as the environmental implications considered.
Indeed. Can't argue with that.
Those include the economic effects in all aspects including the burden on the individual.
There is certainly no harm in costing these things, but there is no reason to expect the more sustainable option to be the cheapest one in the immediate term.

Fine. How to you intend to convince people not to buy cheap imported Chinese goods.?

There are the issues of assorted containers hanging around the place for weeks
Well - up to a couple of weeks anyway.
and the choice for the individual.
That's certainly an issue that gets you excited, but not most people I meet.

I don't get excited about things like this. I'll simply do what I consider to be the correct course of action.

and that it is not possible to form the positions or implement the policies and procedures arising from them genuinely.
Depends what you mean by "genuine".
Sometimes the differences are gross enough that you don't need more than one significant figure... Usually I suspect...

I remain to be convinced. One cannot reasonably examine every facet and every locality in detail, but as soon as the exposures of political targets occur, the alarm bells should ring and the whole thing be examined. This does not seem to happen, which discredits the whole thing.

That then begs the question of why they are being implemented, but of course that doesn't suit the activists.
Or the EU...
:) Fill your boots as far as I'm concerned...

The gray train again

The considerations that should be going into this are which things are worth doing and why and to provide solid evidence.
Agreed.
Then consideration should be given to a range of options that can be offered to the customer.
Yes - though you might take the trouble to see if the customer wants a choice, taking into the account the environmental consequences of the provision of multiple services / service levels.

Customers where I live certainly do.

All the time that the arguments continue to be based on weak data, poorly explained and only one option given, the whole exercise remains discredited.
Well - you bleat about it as discredited and more data would certainly be good, but most people seem happy to accept that there is a case to recycle, and from what I've seen, this seems to be correct, though I accept that there will be regional differences, and sometimes better alternatives.

Better alternatives are to have a range of services available so that the customer can decide.

I would count environmental benefit as anything that results in more *sensble* recycling provided that there are choices in how that is implemented in terms of the impact on the customer.
I am not going to buy into anything that doesn't meet the economic and convenience factors first. Well, unless you plan to place some value on the environment which you don't seem to, that makes you more or less unable to make any of the sorts of sacrifice that may be necessary to make society sustainable, never mind the contraction and convergence agenda. A pretty mean spirited and selfish stance in my view.
You are making loaded emotional arguments that are saying that
I'm saying that if you can't even be bothered to sort your own rubbish, a low effort, low time commitment activity, you are not demonstrating that you value the environment, or are willing to make much sacrifice to support it.

It isn't an issue of "can't be bothered" but one of the choice between whether I do this or someone else, who is being paid to do the job is or is not doing it. That's a straightforward business decision and is not on the emotional basis that you are trying to suggest.
It is not correct either to suggest that a "sacrifice" be made in order to support something. That is the stuff of religious fanaticism. Taking this to a more sensible proposition, I do value and support the environment - both on a compulsary basis through taxation and on a voluntary one through charitable donations. Again - one size does not fit all.

- unless one participates in a set piece policy and implementation that one doesn't care about the environment. Untrue.
Unsaid, but I expect there is a correlation.

No there isn't.

There can be many different ways of achieving objectives.
Indeed. And very few people, me included, will do all of the things that anybody might ever regard as 'green' - I'm not saying that everyone has to do everything, but as waste separation is a low effort activity, most people seem willing enough to undertake it.
What contribution are you making then ?

Already stated.

anyway and contraction and convergence is unlikely to be a realistic goal anyway.
:) We'll have to see. Got any equitable alternatives in mind ?

Who said that things have to be equitable?

Sacrifices tend not to happen, but rather a better and more acceptable alternative comes along to replace them.
That's certainly the way it goes if you are well resourced. Unfortunately, as a species, we are neither evenly or well resourced, at least with respect to the demands the technologically developed countries are placing on the planet.
Contraction and convergence of course seeks to address the matter of how evenly resourced people are.

A pointless exercise, then. Some animals are always more equal than others.

On 2006-12-04 16:48:31 +0000, John Beardmore said:

The inevitable result is overpricing and poor quality. The only way to defend that is not to have any competition so that people have comparison points. This strikes me as a political belief rather than an observation based on what can be observed in the town hall. One only has to look in a few places to see a consistent malaise. Guess I just look under different rocks.
Perhaps that's where you are going wrong. The malaise is in broad daylight for all to see.
I know what you mean in some departments, but it's not universal. I'm going to support the people in LAs that are worth supporting.

You must spend a lot of time looking.

Supply and branding can be applied in almost any sector. So for example, SITA could offer a range of waste collection services that I might like to buy; or I can buy a different package of services from the local authoriity but operated by SITA. It just requires a little imagination and application of business principles. Yes - though I'm not sure what the point is or how it helps.
Sigh.
Didn't your environmental studies course have anything about business principles..?
Well up to a point, but they don't generally encourage the provision of redundant services to gratify and ideological lust for choice where any marginal benefit from the provision of choice is swamped by increasing the environmental footprint of the service provision of a whole.

Not in touch with reality then...

And calling it a "Home Care" package implies that there is more bundled into it than waste collection. I thought you only wanted to pay for what you used ?
So create "Home Care" bronze, silver and gold products.
Bronze is basic rubbish collection, silver includes collecting additional things such as garden rubbish etc. and gold includes rat catching and wasp nest destruction; or whatever. Just illustrations.
Hmmm... The only people to whom this kind of thing seems to appeal are those who seem to be obsessed by the provision of choice a matter of principle. Still - make it an election issue, and see how far you get. It'd be interesting to see.

I think it will....

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-04 21:56:48 +0000, Pete C said:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:39:59 +0000, Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam wrote:
I bet you could sort all the recyclable stuff from your rubbish in a tiny fraction of the time you spend posting to uk.d-i-y and worrying about ££££ tools.
I *could*. I wish to have the choice not to, but for it to be done by the provider, not to be required to do so.
Well that's the price of living in a more civilised country, and one where the democratically elected local/national government requires you to play a part.
I do play a significant part, through the payment of taxes. I am looking for a return on that.

Then talk to local (and indeed regional and national) elected members and officers. I'd be very surprised if public meetings are not held on issues such as planning, waste management etc. and if times are inconvenient (they can never suit everyone) then phone, snailmail and email can be useful for having your say. Works for me.

On uk.environment, in , "Mary Fisher" wrote:

"sarah" wrote in message
I know exactly what's coming next. This lady is obviously another Beardmore, smart as a whip with the intellectual integrity of a sleazeball politician:
I know sarah IRL and while she is smarter than any whip I know

Cute.

her intellectual integrity is beyond reproach.

No. That's obvious as hell.
She said she was willing to live near all of the industries that make her lifestyle possible.
She isn't. She doesn't. And she won't. And she knows it.
OR, she doesn't know anything about industrial technology and is thus not qualified to be discussing the subject.
If the former is true, then she's lying. If the latter is true she would, if she had intellectual integrity, admit her ignorance and bow out until she's done her homework. A lot of it.
And amazing number of people who know nothing about how this civilization works in the real world consider themselves to be environmental experts.
Their psuedo-educations on the subject come from promotional materials published by environmental orgs and/or from textbooks produced by major corporations.
None of the above materials cover even the basics of how the things we consume are produced.
And without that understanding you just can't talk realistically about the environment.
For example: It takes about 3.25 acres of land to produce the _food_ for the animals whose products you consume.
How many people in Great Britain? Do the math. If every scrap of land in GB was devoted to growing the food for those animals you still wouldn't have enough.
But it's much more fun to talk about sorting garbage and "global warming", isn't it?

And we don't even always agree :-)

Sure you do. You agree on some basic, and erroneous, assumptions.
Like: We don't have to make fundamental changes in our lifestyle because it isn't the cause of the environmental crisis.
It's those Evil Politicians and Evil Corporations who are to blame.
And: We (billions of people) can live a supermaterialistic lifestyle _and_ preserve the Nature that sustains us.
Those wonderful Scientists will invent amazing technologies that will make this possible.
Alan
-- http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/survival/index.html http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/linux-unix/index.html

Thanks for your kookfart, Beavis.
-- <article not downloaded:
Info about "Alan Connor"
Alan "The Usenet Beavis" Connor is a good friend of Bigfoot: http://tinyurl.com/23r3f
A couple of years ago he was kidnapped and raped by Xena, the Warrior Princess: http://tinyurl.com/2gjcy
Beavis believes that the MSBlast virus of yesteryear was explicitly targeting him, for some inexplicable reason: http://tinyurl.com/ifrt
Beavis belongs to a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/2hhdx Beavis's life in a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/24jqm Beavis knows all about network security: http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6 And he's also a search engine expert: http://tinyurl.com/9pjnt
"But if you must know, Alans' name is Bruce Burhans, and he lives in Bellingham WA. To his hippie friends he calls himself "Tom Littlefoot" **Google Tom Littlefoot, Bruce Burhans and "Wildwood"**.
Bruce has some serious mental problems and spends a lot of time as an in-patient at the big mental hospital in Bellingham, when he's not hospitalized, he posts to usenet. In every group he posts to he comes off as some sort of expert in the subject at hand, and when anyone disagrees (and they will, he sees to that) he starts in on his trollery.
Again, Bruce is a true Professional Usenet Troll. It is his entertainment and it's what he lives for."
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=MQ9uxRYAAAAX2tAp-itjMPAOxLgFwCc3_gRbb05PKyTO4L-MEqh3HQ&hl=en http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/ http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#CR http://www.gatago.com/authors_pgs/13650.html http://blog.bananasplit.info/?p=84 http://tinyurl.com/ifrt http://tinyurl.com/3h6a5 http://tinyurl.com/ys6z4
Also in the headers for alan to read.

In message , The Central Authority writes

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:26:47 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The plastic is shipped to China.
Well - if our plastic didn't go there, presumably oil would. Which do you think has the lower net environmental impact ?
A non-sequitur.
Waste plastic going to China does not replace oil.

I think the word I used was "displace", and yes, it does, since PET is made from oil.

I've seen photographs of PET bottles being burnt in China on open bonfires yielding acrid yellow smoke.

Even if you have, that doesn't mean that the Chinese burn all PET, or indeed that all our PET goes to China.
And anyway - I think you'll find we use plenty of PET in the UK !

I am sure if PET could be shredded and included with pulverised fuel at British power stations it would be.

Hmmm... Can't see why it couldn't be. It doesn't contain any nitrogen sulphur or halogens so it should be 'game on' unless, as is likely, there's a better use for it. Drax is tooling up to burn a bit of wood on the side, but I doubt burning that is the best use for PET.

Waste paper (including Yellow Pages) can be put in a recycling box but Yellow Pages cannot be put in a waste paper collection station. The waste paper is driven to Kent and from there shipped to Sweden where it is reprocessed,
Really ? I though Kent had a lot of UK based paper mills ?
Why should Kent have a lot of paper mills?

My understanding is that a lot of wood comes into the UK from Europe.

For composting, small branches are OK but dead woody matter isn't. How you tell the difference between a small branch (which is dead woody matter but allowed) and something which is dead woody matter and not allowed is interesting but could cost you a lot of money to get wrong.
In theory. How many are fined in practice ?
Sems to be about 1 per week, and the fines are not minor slaps on the wrist either. ISTR �400 for a single item of junk mail in with the waste paper.

I find that hard to believe.

Glass and Plastic bottles are supposed to be washed - which wastes water and energy.
Water is a renewable resource, at least for the time being.
Water usage is currently restricted in many parts of this country.

Quite possibly, but it continues to fall out of the sky.
The real question is if recycling uses less energy than working with virgin materials, and which of the above is more sustainable. Any thoughts ?

How much energy is used raising a moderate amount of water to say 55 degrees, (and the tail end of the washing up water will probably do !), as opposed to melting glass ?
Another non-sequitur, it still has to be melted.

Not if it's reused, but I take your point - that isn't what we were talking about, true, but at least it avoids the production of the sodium carbonate, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, aluminium oxide and any additives used to give colour etc. Reuse would be the better option where possible of course !

Unsurprisingly this scheme is held up as a paragon of virtue by FOE and won an award.
Well - I guess the question is, can you prove that the impacts outweigh the benefits ? Because, of course there impacts - that's no surprise, it's just a question of magnitude.
Or, more to the point, "Does any of it make sense ?"

Well - as said at length LCA is generally the best arbiter of that, and as I understand it, generally recycling does make sense relative to landfill, but that doesn't rule out any and all alternatives.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 01:37:41 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

Sems to be about 1 per week, and the fines are not minor slaps on the wrist either. ISTR �400 for a single item of junk mail in with the waste paper.
I find that hard to believe.

I suspect the OP is referring to the following
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,,1925467,00.html
====================================================================
Environmentalists yesterday criticised a council for prosecuting a man who put the wrong kind of rubbish into a recycling bag. Friends of the Earth said the case of Michael Reeves, who has been ordered to pay �200 for putting a single sheet of paper in a bag reserved for glass and tin, could put others off recycling.
Mr Reeves, from Swansea in south Wales, said he would not attempt to recycle again. He was backed by other residents who said the council ought to be putting more resources into keeping the streets clean rather than chasing people who were trying to do the right thing.
The saga began when a recycling team spotted a sheet of paper in a green bag outside Mr Reeves's flat - a bill with Mr Reeves's name on it. He denied he had put it in the green bag but was fined �100 with �100 costs by Swansea magistrates.
Friends of the Earth Cymru, the Welsh arm of the environmental group, said the prosecution sent out the wrong signal. Spokesman Julian Rosser said: "I feel a case like this can really damage recycling.
"If someone persistently puts the wrong things into the wrong bags, and is warned, then we would support prosecution." But the "one-off offence was very, very minor." Mr Reeves, a 28-year-old local sports journalist, said: "I am very angry. I still deny putting that piece of paper in the bag." Swansea council said most people managed to sort their waste. "It's not rocket science," said a spokesman. "The bags are labelled clearly."
====================================================================

-- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Phil Bradshaw" wrote in message

Guy King wrote:
The message <MsidnSK_-4MAsOjYRVnyuA@pipex.net from Phil Bradshaw <philbradshaw@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike contains these words:
This may be related to 'It is an offence to remove, pick over etc. waste on this site etc. etc. blah blah blah.' at bring (recycling) sites - Greater Manchester anyway.
That's true almost anywhere. The trick is to make sure it doesn't apply to you by being friendly and helpful to the staff.
Indeed. My son spotted some 486 computers in the white goods pile at one site and did an ask ... and got the nod to whip the CPUs out and a couple of other bits while I gave the site worker a hand sorting metal.

We were offered some brand new children's clothing when the site worker said it was a disgrace that they were being thrown out. We took them, gratefully.
Mary

David Hansen wrote:

On 4 Dec 2006 02:41:42 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-
They take up little extra space or get in the way if organised properly.
tell it to people living in small accomodation, it wont wash.
There appear to be rather a lot of assumptions behind your remark.

Any extra container than the main black binbag one has to take up more space, it cant fail to. Several of them, even if relatively small, are a problem in some accommodation. Then the same deal happens again outside.

There are few houses with gales inside them such that if a bag of "junk" falls over it will be blown everywhere.
no, that occurs outside
Outside the "junk" should be inside suitable containers, a bin or box, rather then bags.

Maybe you should tell our LA.

Boxes of cans in people's houses, gardens or the street?
outdoors
And how do these "fill up with neighbourhood rubbish"?

people put junk in them

Provided people comply with the rules there are few cases of binmen not taking "junk" away.
i wish. If it were true I'd still be using the service.
Then you have a particular problem, but that doesn't mean it is a general one. What is your description of the problem?

they fail to take the recyclables so often the system is unworkable. Yes, the rules were followed. Anyhow the result of all this is recycling is no longer practical.
You appear to now be saying the LA is not so great after all. Would you say someone who can actually do the job should be given a chance to do so?
NT