Jerry_Atrick

I would argue that improvement in tyre technology is part of the safety system of a car. In the words of my favourite teacher, the late Jack Leahey, "there's only four bits of rubber the size of the palm of your hand between you and eternity when in a car".. Also, one could argue the technology in roads is being researched to improve safety, too, including things lite cats eyes and there was some other visual technology released not too long ago. All things combined, it's a system of driving and is far safer than it was. The numbers seem to refllect that.

13 years of conservatives, and they are progressives? I'm with @Litespeed - you need help.. and lots of it. The simple fact is, under the previous Labour admin in the UK, they took a basket case economy handed to them by the cumulative effects of Thatcher and Major, made structural changes to make it a solid economy (and yeah, they made mistakes) and handed a strong economy that survived the global financial crisis far better than most of its peers to the conservatives, who's non-progressive agenda wrecked it to almost beyond repair. Somehow, though, it was the "progressives" fault? In the great worlds of Pauline Hanson, please explain.. because all you do is fluff a lot of hot air, with no basis and can't refer to anything to even mildly support your assertions. The Aussie economy is in pretty good shape given its challenges under the stewardship of Labor, especially when you consider what was handed to them. The LNP are also hardly progressive, but somehow their economic record is never quite as good as Labor's. Again, they aren't perfect and make mistakes, but when the chips are down, I know who I would prefer to be in.

Yes... Strange how the UKgovernment couldn't find the money to bail out British Steel until a donor (Gupta) took it over for a penny.. and then the money was found.. Nice little earner for 1p for the fella.

Haven't read it yet as I have to go out, but here is what Chat GPT has to say on the same question: Title: Historical Parallels in the Rise of Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump Throughout history, leaders have emerged under similar sociopolitical circumstances, often capitalizing on economic distress, nationalistic sentiment, and public disillusionment. The rise of Adolf Hitler in 1930s Germany and Donald Trump in the United States during the 2010s share striking parallels. While their ideologies and historical contexts differ significantly, the manner in which they ascended to power bears noteworthy similarities. This treatise explores these parallels in terms of populism, media manipulation, scapegoating, erosion of democratic norms, and the mobilization of mass movements. 1. Exploitation of Economic and Social Grievances Both Hitler and Trump rose to prominence during periods of national crisis. Hitler exploited Germany’s post-World War I economic depression and the public's discontent with the Treaty of Versailles, positioning himself as the savior of the German people. Similarly, Trump capitalized on the economic anxieties of the American middle class, particularly in the wake of the Great Recession, and the perceived decline of American manufacturing jobs. Both leaders promised a return to national greatness, using slogans like "Make America Great Again" and "Deutschland über alles" to appeal to nationalist sentiment. 2. Populist Rhetoric and Anti-Establishment Messaging Hitler and Trump both employed populist rhetoric, casting themselves as outsiders who would dismantle a corrupt and ineffective political establishment. Hitler vilified the Weimar Republic, blaming its leaders for Germany’s struggles. Trump, in turn, attacked the Washington political elite, branding them as part of the "swamp" that needed to be drained. Both men cultivated an image of being the voice of the "common people," rallying mass support against perceived enemies within their own governments. 3. Media Manipulation and Use of Propaganda Both leaders demonstrated a keen understanding of the power of media. Hitler’s propaganda machine, spearheaded by Joseph Goebbels, mastered the use of radio, print, and mass rallies to spread Nazi ideology and control public opinion. Similarly, Trump utilized social media, particularly Twitter, to bypass traditional media channels and communicate directly with his base. Both men attacked the press, branding critical media outlets as purveyors of "Lügenpresse" ("lying press") in Hitler’s case and "fake news" in Trump’s. 4. Scapegoating and the Creation of Internal Enemies A hallmark of both leaders’ rise to power was their reliance on scapegoating. Hitler blamed Germany’s woes on Jews, communists, and other marginalized groups, fueling anti-Semitic and nationalist fervor. Trump similarly targeted immigrants, particularly those from Latin America and Muslim-majority countries, portraying them as criminals and threats to national security. Both leaders used fear and division to solidify their base and justify controversial policies. 5. Undermining Democratic Institutions As their influence grew, both Hitler and Trump sought to erode democratic norms and institutions. Hitler’s ascent to power culminated in the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act, which effectively dismantled the Weimar Republic’s democracy and established a dictatorship. While Trump did not achieve a comparable level of authoritarian control, his repeated challenges to election results, refusal to commit to peaceful transitions of power, and attempts to delegitimize the judiciary and law enforcement mirrored early warning signs of democratic erosion. 6. Cult of Personality and Mass Mobilization Both leaders built devoted followings, transforming their political movements into quasi-religious phenomena. Hitler’s Nazi Party rallies were grand spectacles that reinforced his leadership through mass displays of loyalty. Trump’s rallies similarly became ritualistic events where supporters chanted slogans like "Lock her up!" and "Build the wall!" The use of spectacle, repetition, and emotional appeal cemented their followers’ allegiance, often at the expense of rational political discourse. 7. Attempts to Overturn Electoral Processes The most alarming parallel emerged in Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Hitler, after failing to seize power in the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, eventually used legal means to dismantle democracy. Trump’s refusal to accept electoral defeat, culminating in the January 6th Capitol riot, showcased an unprecedented effort to subvert democratic processes in the United States. While unsuccessful, it demonstrated the fragility of democratic institutions when faced with authoritarian ambitions. Conclusion While historical comparisons must be made with caution, the parallels between Hitler and Trump’s rise to power are significant. Both men leveraged economic distress, nationalism, and mass media to galvanize support, while undermining democratic norms through populist rhetoric and scapegoating. The key difference lies in the resilience of democratic institutions: Hitler successfully dismantled German democracy, while Trump’s efforts were resisted by the judiciary, media, and civil society. Nevertheless, the warning signs remain. Understanding these historical patterns is crucial in preventing future authoritarian threats, reinforcing democratic values, and ensuring that history does not repeat itself.

I hope you survived the FB holden experience, too.. My mum and dad each had one.. and I managed to survive both (given both their driving skills, absolute luck!). It would be interesting to see the deaths per number of crashes ratio - obviously, though, there are other factors to consider besides the cars safety system - quality of roads at the time, speed, etc. But as a raw figure, that may give a better indication of exactly how good the current day cars safety systems are compared to yesteryears...

Sadly.. yes.. you let the "anti-woke", governments, which in reality, driven by a right wing media really means anti-middle classes in and they rape and pillage the public finances. In 13 years of declining public services and investment, while increasing taxes and debt (pre COVID, the UK had the highest debt and taxes ever - under a conservative "small government" government), and yes, you do have a country that with all its collective experience is broke, because, like all humans, we seem to be really poor from learning from history. And, similar to the LNP, many of the sponsors, er donors, seemed to reap the rewards. Hundreds of billions, if not trillions found their way into the coffers of their sponsors for very little in return. The IT project failures , when involving the companies of donors, were spectacular failures, yet not one penny of what was spent was ever recovered. Like Australia, billions were spent on shell companies that delivered diddly squat. At least our COVID furlough system was much better thought out than Australia's system and the corporates here at least had some integrity and returned a lot of what they claimed on behalf of their employees when it turned out they still made good profits - they covered the furloughed employees bill. In fact, despite some small amount of fraud, that is one thing that the conservatives did a relatively good job of. When I came here, the country was absolutely fantastic, well run, and yeah it had its problems, but it was no where near the stereotype people cast it before I moved. With less money, no-one paid at point of service for a GP and it was rare you couldn't get a GP same day. When they privatised supply of parts of teh NHS, they had to rip out GP funding to pay for the profits - now you will be lucky to get a GP appointment anywhere in the country under 2 weeks; a month is more common, unless you want to pay £120 for it. When the government has decided it has had enough of spending on something like, I dunno, education or welfare, they delegate it to the local councils, but don't increase the funding to the councils to run it.. and the councils can't increases taxes to pay for it; then they blame the councils when it all falls apart.. Yet, the nation, despite offloaing all these costs is still broke. The Labour government has had to enact a mini-austerity budget to plug over £28bn of expenses that were hidden by the previous conservative government. But, like Albo, they had to be small targets and promise not to raise taxes lest the right wing dominated press would have come after them with pitchforks and scythe. But, because of their promise and necessity to keep it, to keep the right wing dominated press beying for blood, they have to raise ancillary taxes to keep the country afloat. And, my dog, are they being pilloried for it... Trying to save what basket case of an economy the Conservatives left and keep the country from defaulting and completely crashing the economy.. The convervates and other right wing partys always seem to receive an economy in relatively good shape and kill it, to be fixed by the more progressive parties, ,who get pilloried for it, and then hand back an economy in good shape to the right wing again. That's because the progressive parties, despite being politicians have a modicum of integrity and do not lie incessantly.. Maybe they should take a leaf from the right wing playbook.. at least there would be no more boom and bust cycles.. we'd always be bust. Oh.. and if you think it hasn't happened before, at least in the UK, look at the economy Major left Blair.. We could go Fraser --> Hawke as well.. Razor gang's mates weren't trimmed as well, as I recall.

The former Conservative government took a wrecking ball to the UK... and yes, it is broke

The number of deaths per year are significantly lower than the mid 60s to the mid 80s, and look at the rate per 100,000 cars now versus 1925 and beyond.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_Australia_by_year

I guess that depends on one's definition of good

I gave @pmccarthy a winner because this is what I love about this forum - I just (rather assertively) disagreed with a post he wrote.. And I often do when it comes to climate change and renewables v. fossils and nuclear in Aus, yet, there is no grudge.. Just an honest response to a post of mine.. Sincerely, thanks @pmccarthy - a true gentleman.

OK.. back to pubs.. The pub in our village is community owned, and I am a shareholder. It doesn't mean much.. we kicked in a few £, and there is no disbursments of profits, etc. I intend to go to the AGM this year and table a few questions, because we are now in the red, and from the accounts just supplied, we have enough cash until about September, unless things turn around. I want to table questions - the accounts are very vague and do not provide the ability to quantify the factors/issues that the chairman's report speaks to. Also, I want to tally anecdotal issues, such as this eve, where the young bar stuff ushered us out before normal closing so they could go to the town's nightclub. Which pisses off punters and they head to other pubs. I am going to research the law tomorrow, but assuming I can ask pertinent questiond of the current committee (which is, for all intents and purposes, the board), what is the best way to question them. The main questions are: The Profit and Loss accounts contain two expenses: Cost of Goods and general admin; however, the committee chair's report speaks to energy costs, labour issues, etc. Can you pls break down the accounts so we can see what the individual costs are? There has been a reproted reduction of footfall- what does that mean? Are there less customers (or less frequenting by customers), or simply falling revenue? What is the average sales per customer (or set of customers in the case of dinners, etc).. How has this changed YoY? There have been numeroud anecdotal complaints of the number of staff (we have 2 managers for a small community pub) and the efficiency/efficacy of the staff, including assertions that the staff do not act in the best interest of the local communoty, especially towards closing time of the pub? Has the board considered different strategies to appeal to customers to increase footfall and average sales per customer? What are they? Would appreciate an honest appraisal of these.. I know I can speak less direct than I shoud.. so don't hold back. A pub's livelihood is on the balance.

Et.. the banks systems should have picked up the anomaly... Defo contact them, but be ready to contact APRA as well. I can't remember if the Aussie system has an ombudsman or similar.

One of my favourite foods is the humble meat pie.. Four n Twenty is my favourite, which most people will dry reach on just hearing the name. I remember way back in prep and grade 1 in primary school, where once a week, mum would write my and my brother's lunch order on a brown paper bag, and in would go the 26 cents (for mine). My brother's order was a salad roll; mine was a pie. And I was like a dog waiting for his tucker to be served.. Oh.. and when it came, it was heaven tucking iunto a hot pastry case with that yummy gravy and meat inside (OK, it may have been horse or rat.. but it was yummy). And then memories of going to footy games. In those days, it was Princess Park, which was also Hawthorn's playing ground, Arden Street, the MCG, Windy Hill, Moorabbin, and the like, where on blustery days, would grab a pie at half time with tomato sauce - was heaven. I still have one of the carry trays they used to sell them on.. liberated from Arden Street that was discarded by one of the sellers. Obviously, I have growed up a bit since then.. but when I return to Aus, I make a bee line to the nearest 7-11 to get a pie.. Well, except they don't sell Four 'n Twenties anymore, but I found last time I was in Aus, Coles Express still did. Nice and warm, though the separate tomoato sauce packs where you can't inject the sauce and burn your tounge with the super-heated sauce isn't quite the same. But, since I have growed up, my cullinary tastes have expanded. I can ear the fancy new modern food, and it is lovely. But today, I went to an Inidan restaurant in Bristol, and wowsers.. was absolutely divine. The fragrance of the spices and herbs, and chicked was definitely real, and even my partner could eat their chikpeas (she normally hates them). Their website is here: https://www.mowglistreetfood.com/ I have a couple of Indian fellas working for me, and they took me to this restaurant, which was to die for: https://www.dishoom.com. It was better than today's, and on their web site you can even get some recipes. Australia simply doesn't compete in this cuisine, and Gaylords of Melbourne is, to me, a bit like a slightly upmarket Indian hole in the wall. So, while I am not looking forward to the lack of Indian food in Aus, the Thai is amazing, and so are other cuisines. I really love fragrant food... However, nothing will beat the humble pie.. ever..

BS! Any references, because, lets face it, if that were the case, the Murcoch press would have been all over it, and it would be easy to find. But I couldn't find anything. I could find an interview by Sarah Fergusson to Chris Bowen and Tim O'Brien. Let me summarise.. He stated that the CSIRO admitted to a parliamentary committee that they haad less expertise in certain areas than the IAEE - that's it. Whoopee do.. what does that prove? . Chris Bowen pointed out that with Tim O'Brien raised concerns that the CSIRO underestimated the lifecycle of nuclear plants and their operating capacity; the CSIRO took it onboard, and ran the numbers and found there was no basis for that assertion and even if there was, there would be little change: https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/transcripts/interview-sarah-ferguson-abc-730-4 Nothing I could find suggested the CSIRO contracted out the work, let alone to a subcontractor with no specific experience. Think about.. Globally respected scientific organisation contracts out research in a subject it has no experience in........ to an organisation that has no experience in it... Quite a stark raving made assertion. But people will use anything to justify their postiion no matter how much the facts show otherwise. Virtually every respected organisation in the world that has looked at it says no.. but hey.. go by your recollection of a totally illogical scenario...

What has Trump done now? Backtracked his trade war, again: https://on.ft.com/3Q7M0Ue He is showing himself to be as smart as Putin was invading Ukraine.. easy peasy lemon squeezy.. Little too much lemon, me thinks.

Good point.. and other states too.. Victoria, although disproportionately reported by the MSM, is not the only one.. Just so happens, Adnrews wasn't as hated by the MSM as the others: https://grattan.edu.au/news/34b-and-counting-beware-cost-overruns-in-an-era-of-megaprojects/ It's more about the size and complexity than any particular government. Let's dface it, they provide the costs by the contractors engaged, they don't come up with a number whipped from their own posterior.

That's a very good point... The question then becomes which are more likely to run into overruns, and what is the magnitude of those overruns? I don't know, so I asked the internet about the difference of cost and time blowouts of nuclear versus renewable project, and the closest response to the question I got was from AI, which cites interesting articles on why nuclear is more suscetoble to these effects: However, haven't had enough time to research myself, so am happy to have AI corrected, but it sort of makes sense that nuclear would be more prone to overruns as it is more complex, and as a species, we are pretty terrible at estimating things, especially when confirmation biask kicks in as we want to do the project. But, even assuming there is the same chance an in relative terms, it has the same impact, by definition, the hideously expensive, complex, and long durations to build nuclear as opposed to renewables will mean that the impact of these overruns will be massively higher.. does it not? And so why a) go to the initial much longer term and much higher expense and then incur much longer duration and much higher additional costs... for the same output... This quotes a CSIRO analysis. OK, it is summarised by the climate council - I don't have time to review it, but even if these are slight bendings of the truth, you would be crazy in Australia to go nuclear today; 20 years ago - yeah - but today - just plain stupid: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/csiro-confirms-nuclear-fantasy-would-cost-twice-as-much-as-renewables/ To quote - the cost of electricity will be double. Lets say thats an overstatement - even if it is 50% higher, why wouls yoou pursue it? Then the average cost overruns in relative, not absolute terms puts nuclear storage (and we are going to need some) at 230%, and nuclear power at 120%. Solar is 1%, wind is 13%, and hydro is 75% (which would be attribued to its higher complexity)... Even at the highest overrun, it is 60% of nuclear's lowest average overruns, but I would hesitate to guess most of Autralia's renewable mix would be solar and wind. You don't need me to explain the maths of the stupidity of pursuing nuclear in Australia on the pure economics.. And, it will probably create as many jobs, and the best thing is they will be distributed in the regions rather than concentrated.

Indeed they are.. But there is something about flyigng IFR over long distances, even on a VMC day, that makes it Oh So Nice....

Pretty well much.. I am always checking the market for all three. There is a good looking TB21 in Aus her: https://www.planesales.com.au/details/Listing/Single-Engine-Propeller/11168/2003-Socata-TB-21TC-Trinidad-Aircraft?utm_source=ListingID-11168&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=2003 Socata TB-21TC Trinidad Aircraft That is not too bad a price, to be honest, but over here, they command around the equivalent of $330k

Gave me this: When evaluating the SOCATA TB20 Trinidad in the pre-owned aircraft market, it's essential to consider its pricing relative to comparable models like the Cessna 182 Skylane and the Piper PA-28R Arrow. Here's a breakdown based on available listings: SOCATA TB20 Trinidad 1986 Model: Listed at $169,900 with 2,678 total hours and 470 hours since factory remanufacture. citeturn0search0 1998 Model: Initially listed at $150,000, the price was later adjusted to $259,900. This aircraft has 1,925 total hours and features updated avionics and interior. citeturn0search1 1985 Model: Priced at $264,000, this aircraft has 3,060 total hours and 324 hours since engine overhaul. citeturn0search2 1989 Model: Available for €130,000 (approximately $144,053) with 3,866 total hours. citeturn0search3 Cessna 182 Skylane The Cessna 182 is renowned for its reliability and widespread availability. Pre-owned models typically range from $150,000 to $250,000, depending on factors like age, total flight hours, and avionics upgrades. Piper PA-28R Arrow The Piper Arrow, known for its retractable gear and solid performance, usually falls within the $100,000 to $200,000 range on the pre-owned market. Prices vary based on model year, condition, and equipment. Comparative Analysis The SOCATA TB20 Trinidad often commands higher prices in the pre-owned market compared to its competitors. This premium can be attributed to its spacious cabin, advanced avionics, and European design. However, potential buyers should weigh these advantages against factors like maintenance considerations and parts availability. In contrast, the Cessna 182 Skylane and Piper PA-28R Arrow offer more affordable options with extensive support networks, making them attractive choices for many pilots. When considering a pre-owned aircraft, it's crucial to assess individual aircraft history, maintenance records, and specific equipment to determine the best value for your investment. ----------------------- So, not too bad a tool at all;.

It was mildly entertaining. What I really like about it, it it doesn't complain about my typos 😉 I typed this: And got this: The SOCATA TB20 Trinidad had several strong attributes, including modern avionics, a spacious and comfortable cabin, and solid performance. However, it never became one of the most popular light aircraft due to several key reasons: 1. Higher Cost Compared to Rivals 💰 The TB20 was more expensive than competitors like the Cessna 182 Skylane and Piper Arrow. Many buyers opted for these more affordable alternatives. 2. Limited Support Network 🛠️ SOCATA, a French manufacturer, had a smaller service network compared to American brands like Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft. This made maintenance and parts availability more challenging, especially in the U.S. 3. Market Dominance of U.S. Aircraft 🇺🇸 The American general aviation market was heavily dominated by established manufacturers. Pilots and flight schools preferred brands with strong reputations and widespread availability. 4. Competition from Cirrus and Mooney ✈️ In the late 1990s and 2000s, Cirrus SR22 and Mooney M20 aircraft offered superior performance, modern safety features (like parachute systems), and better marketing strategies. 5. Fuel Efficiency and Performance Trade-offs ⛽ While the TB20 had respectable performance (cruising at around 155 knots), it wasn't significantly better than competitors. Some pilots found it less fuel-efficient for its speed compared to Mooney models. 6. Production and Brand Shifts 🔄 The TB20 was produced by SOCATA, which later became Daher. The company shifted its focus to larger turboprops (like the TBM series), limiting further development and support for the TB line. Conclusion Despite its excellent handling, comfort, and European styling, the TB20 Trinidad struggled against lower-cost and better-supported aircraft. It remains a well-regarded aircraft but never reached mainstream success. Would you like a comparison with a specific competitor? 🚀 Now, I know why...

The Great Debate: Cessna 172 vs. Piper PA-28-161—Which One is Better at Making You Look Like a Pilot? If you’ve ever set foot on a general aviation airfield, you’ve probably overheard a heated debate between flight instructors, student pilots, and hangar-flying veterans about one of aviation’s greatest rivalries: the Cessna 172 versus the Piper PA-28-161. These two planes have been at each other’s throats for decades, locked in a battle for the hearts (and wallets) of aspiring aviators. So, which one is truly superior? Buckle up, adjust your seatbelt (or just try to find it in a Piper), and let’s settle this once and for all. High Wings vs. Low Wings: The Never-Ending Feud Cessna pilots will proudly tell you that high-wing aircraft provide better visibility of the ground, making it ideal for sightseeing, aerial photography, and confirming that the airport is still there after the instructor told you to “just fly the pattern.” The high wing also means you can board your majestic flying chariot like a dignified professional—no awkward limbo moves required. Piper pilots, on the other hand, will scoff and claim that a low-wing configuration is aerodynamically superior, gives a smoother ride, and just looks cooler. Plus, taxiing under a Cessna wing during a rainy preflight is like getting a free carport. Meanwhile, in a Piper, you’ll be crawling onto the wing like a skydiver who forgot their parachute. Yoke vs. Yoke (But One is Just Cooler) Both aircraft have yokes, but the Cessna’s is a classic “steering wheel” design, which makes you feel like a captain of industry—or at least like you’re driving a very lightweight bus. The Piper yoke, however, is shorter and often called a “ram’s horn,” because it sort of looks like something you’d mount on the wall of a Texas barbecue restaurant. While neither option is particularly space-efficient, at least Piper pilots don’t have to reach through the yoke to adjust the throttle like they’re playing an aviation-themed game of Operation. Flaps: The Real Showdown Ah, flaps—the one flight control surface that turns landing into something resembling a controlled descent rather than a mild accident. The Cessna 172 boasts manual flaps in older models (because exercise is important) and electric flaps in newer ones. They deploy like a champion, allowing pilots to achieve delightfully slow approach speeds. Meanwhile, the Piper PA-28-161 offers flaps that seem more like an afterthought. They exist, sure, but they’re manually operated via a Johnson bar that makes you feel like you’re trying to start an old-timey railroad handcart. And let’s not even talk about the first time a student discovers that Piper flaps don’t extend past 25 degrees. The look of betrayal on their face is priceless. Emergency Landing Considerations A crucial question every pilot must ask: When the engine stops (and let’s face it, it will—eventually), which aircraft gives you the best chance of walking away unscathed? The Cessna 172, with its wing positioned above your head like a guardian angel, practically begs you to glide gently to a landing in a cornfield, allowing you to step out unharmed and immediately begin crafting an over-dramatic pilot story for your next hangar chat. The Piper PA-28? Well, let’s just say you’ll have a great time skidding across the ground while being gently reminded that wings don’t bounce as well as they should. Final Verdict: Who Wins? The truth is, both planes are excellent choices for training, time-building, and general aviation fun. The Cessna 172 is like the reliable family sedan—practical, easy to fly, and an absolute workhorse. The Piper PA-28-161, on the other hand, is like a sporty coupe—sleek, slightly more refined, and just a little more exciting (or so its pilots claim). At the end of the day, it all comes down to personal preference. Whether you prefer entering your aircraft with dignity or climbing onto the wing like a mountain goat, whether you enjoy flaps that actually work or ones that are just kind of there—one thing is for sure: No matter what you fly, pilots will always find something to argue about at the hangar.

One of the great things about Chat GPT et al, is that you virtually have your own free magaizne. I was bored and asked it to write a humurous article comparing the C172 to the PA28 Warrior, and it was mildly entertaining, but pretty accurate. It's not good enought to disrupt Aussie Flying and the like, but you can make your own entertainment.

I will get some photos tomorrow, but the last of the windows finally went in today. It was the study window, which was the private chapel of the rectors who lived here. We had an original lead-framed pane, and they made two more from it, and the frame had to be curved. Bloomin expensive, but that is it. We are on the looooong home stretch of decoration and getting the garden done. Be calling in the agents soon.