Ed Coleridge

I’m trying out the other site for a while (edcoleridge). I might be back, I probably wont be. Retweet isn't an endorsement, just find it interesting.

[Ed Coleridge @edcoleridge]

This blog https://t.co/PZ7396a7AV shows how #NextGen Load Controls work in civil aviation. By comparison Load Controls in @RoyalAirForce have arguably gone backwards. #ASTRA should be looking to invest in systems to generate efficiencies. #NextGenRAF @RAF_Logistics

[Ricky Gervais @rickygervais]

Billy Joel rejected this verse.

[Leandro Trossard @LTrossard]

London is red. 🏆❤️

[Piero Hincapie @pierohincapie]

London is Red. ❤️

[Ed Coleridge @edcoleridge]

Incredible day in London watching The Arsenal parade.

[🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿InsideLucysHead🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿© @InsideLucysHead]

Why the head on a man's penis is larger than the shaft?

Several years ago, Great Britain funded a study to determine why the head on a man's penis is larger than the shaft.

The study took two years and cost over 1.2 million pounds.

The study concluded that the reason the head of a man's penis is larger than the shaft is to provide the man with more pleasure during sex.

After the results were published, France decided to conduct their own study on the same subject.

They were convinced that the results of the British study were incorrect.

After three years of research at a cost of in excess of 2 million Euros, the French researchers concluded that the head of a man's penis is larger than the shaft to provide the woman with more pleasure during sex.

When the results of the French study were released, Australia decided to conduct their own study.

The Aussies didn't really trust British or French studies.
So, after nearly three hours of intensive research and a cost of right around 75 dollars (three cases of beer), the Aussie study was complete.

They concluded that the reason the head on a man's penis is larger than the shaft is to prevent your hand from flying off the end and hitting you in the forehead.

[now.arsenal @now_arsenaI]

What a beautiful video ❤️

[Peter Atherton @peterathertonc1]

So let's work this through using Liverpool FC as an example. In 2024/25 LFC reported £703m of revenue and a wage bill of £440m. LFC reported a £8m post tax profit once other costs had been accounted for. That wage bill would have generated around £240m for HMRC via income tax and NIC payments alone. LFC employed 1,100 full time staff and around 3,000 part time for match days etc.

In the (highly unlikely event) that LFC's revenues remained as is, then the 10:1 cap would lower LFC's wage bill to about £45m [calculated by placing all playing and coaching staff on £200k per annum]. Based on last years revenue LFC's owners would see their profits rise from £8m to £403m. The tax take for HMRC would fall from c.£240m around £125m (income tax+NIC+corporation tax).

Now in reality revenues would not stay as is. A maximum wage of say £200k per annum is mid Championship, top of League 1 level. So if that is the best quality of player EPL clubs could hire then revenues would fall accordingly. TV companies would presumably pay only Championship levels to show matches, and UEFA revenues would largely dry up as English clubs would be quickly eliminated - see Scotland.

So for LFC, TV revenues would fall from c.£260m to say £20m. Commercial revenue would follow, say down from over £323m to £30m and UEFA revenue would at best be £30m. Last year LFC achieved £115m of match day revenue. Given the collapse of other revenue sources they would likely try and keep general admission prices as high as possible, but would have to lower hospitality prices drastically - so let's say match day = £50m [btw this would lead to a reduction in VAT payments of £13m]. So total revenue would now be less than £100m (stripping out UEFA revenue as that is uncertain) down from £700m. This is the sort or revenue earned by Celtic and Rangers in Scotland.

LFC would no longer be able to employ 1,100 full time staff. Clubs in the Championship typically employ around 200-300 staff at most. Nor would they be able to afford to spend £20m per annum on its academy or subsidise its Women's team with £10m per annum.

So the EPL would be reduced in quality and standing to that of the SPL. Across the 20 clubs probably 10,000 full time jobs would be cut, academies would be scaled back and support for Women's football drastically reduced. HMRC's tax take across the division would be down by at least £2bn to £2.5bn

[Sam Dumitriu @Sam_Dumitriu]

Don't be misled. This really isn't a big investment in roads.

- This is a 15-20% real terms cut in overall road spending.
- Spending on new roads (e.g. dualling roads like the A1) has been cut massively from around £10.5bn to under £4bn. (And that's not taking into account massive construction inflation.)
- As a result, the project pipeline has been slashed.
- One expert told me that we've lost 24 pipeline schemes today. On top of a lot of projects cancelled since the GE like the Stonehenge Tunnel and the A27 bypass.
- Almost all of the pipeline schemes in the North have been cut.
- Past RISs may have under delivered (in part due to Covid) but there was ambition.
- Road Investment Strategy (RIS) 1 (15-20) promised 65 starts, RIS2 (2020-2025) promised 43, RIS3? Just 5.
- All the schemes starting in RIS3 were already in the RIS2 pipelines.

Do we need new roads?

- Well, France and Germany both have far more miles of motorway than us. France and Germany also have much less congested motorways.
- These are old figures, but as our population has grown since the stats are likely even worse now.
- The National Infrastructure Commission (now NISTA) advised DfT to invest more in roads and pointed out that green arguments (CO2) don't add up when there are plans to switch to EVs.
- In the last 25 years alone, the French built more miles of motorway than the entire UK motorway network.

It's good to fix potholes, but RIS 3 lacks the ambition of past strategies and suggests the Government is largely giving up on building/upgrading roads.

[Julian Jessop @julianHjessop]

Chart(s) of the Day 🤓

Here's what has actually happened to UK GDP per head since the Brexit vote in 2016, and what it would have looked like if the magical EU fairy dust had added 8%... 🤔

[Andrew Allison @andrew_allison]

Listen to @afneil’s excellent monologue today. 👇

[Michael Fabricant 🇬🇧🇺🇸🇮🇱🇺🇦 @Mike_Fabricant]

And the BBC criticises @GBNEWS❓
McSweeney was NOT in Government and he was NOT in the cabinet let alone “top position”!
The BBC should not publish such inaccurate nonsense.
Bring back Lord Reith❗️

[ian bremmer @ianbremmer]

ultra-conservative: no, pretty much same as shinzo abe

seize more power: wins a democratic election

what the hell, @skynews?

[WeGotitBack 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧🇺🇸 @NotFarLeftAtAll]

Everyday of the week.. it seems

[Omid Djalili @omid9]

Nothing on @BBCNews about #IranMassacre - not one article.
If I’m being kind it might be because the general population of Britain can’t quite believe there is now overwhelming evidence that so called “security forces” in another country are exterminating their citizens by the thousands mostly shooting them in the head at point blank range for peaceful protest when in Britain you can’t get the police to come out if you’ve had your car stolen.
https://t.co/eUDbVcFfO1

[ian bremmer @ianbremmer]

us college activists would gain a little credibility if they were demonstrating against the brutal repression in iran.

[Andrew Neil @afneil]

Given the scale of these protests now and the growing death toll of ordinary folks fighting for freedom the near total silence of the British and American celebrity class — so vocal on so many other matters — is rather striking.

[S Sebag Montefiore @simonmontefiore]

One of the bizarre and telling peculiarities of the surging protests in Iran has been that the best coverage of the momentous bravery of the ordinary Iranians fighting Islamic dictatorship has been by a comedian @omid9 - and not our famous BBC.

[LBC @LBC]

‘My business rates are going up over 100%.’

@ChefTomKerridge shocks @TomSwarbrick1 with how his businesses are being hit by Labour’s taxes on pubs.

[Iain Dale 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧 ⚒️ @IainDale]

Omid is right. The "liberal" media reporting on this is weak, wrong and often ill-judged. Too many just use it to bash America, and of course Israel. How about they do what we did today on LBC and give priority to Iranian voices, especially those who have experienced the regime.