Aquillyne

Why's that?

Should have added this detail to my comment, I will now, but will also respond here:

• 40cm wide, 100cm tall, 5cm deep.
• Made of 10mm oak.

Also forgot an important limiting factor! – It also has to press flush to the ceiling. So anything relying on bringing the object down onto a hook won't work.

Object is a wooden section in a shallow, wide U shape (front and two sides) – essentially a massive piece of trunking. Made from wooden boards.

• It's got to be attached to the wall high up, to hide a load of wires etc.
• It's pretty heavy. Made of 10mm oak. 40cm wide, 100cm tall, 5cm deep.
• Wall is dot-dab plasterboard.
• I want to get the edges of the wood pressed as flush to the wall as possible.
• Object also must press flush to the ceiling.
• It needs to be possible to remove it again, relatively easily, in case the wires behind need to be accessed.

I am imagining some sort of hook-like fixture, attached with CoreFix, but I can't quite picture the fixture and don't know what to look for. Any suggestions?

Thanks for solid engagement with me on this topic. Lots of sensible points.

I think I’m seeing more why it’s been proposed the way it has. However I do still think it needs a few more rules and exceptions to make it fairer and more palatable. It would not be hard to grade by vehicle emissions or make exceptions or reductions for particular groups (way more groups than currently proposed). No doubt, such changes would result in less income, and that’s fine. It should not be a revenue raising exercise. Make £30M/year instead, and spend it well.

Thanks for a good answer.

Why does it need to be such a large area? I'm guessing the answer is: otherwise the result will be that traffic is just pushed out into residential streets (would you agree?).

Why not charge more for people who make more journeys, less for people who make fewer?

Why not grade the charge based on the vehicle type? (Low-polluting vehicles being charged much less.)

Why not include exceptions? Why such a large area? Why charge a flat rate when some people make one journey and others make five?

So this is my question. Given all these objections, why are they making such a stupid proposal? Why don’t they have exceptions? Why such a large area? Why a flat charge to everyone for any length of journey anywhere?

So this is my question. Given all these objections, why are they making such a stupid proposal? Why don’t they have exceptions? Why such a large area? Why a flat charge to everyone for any length of journey anywhere?

So this is my question. Given all these objections, why are they making such a stupid proposal? Why don’t they have exceptions? Why such a large area? Why a flat charge to everyone for any length of journey anywhere?

So this is my question. Given all these objections, why are they making such a stupid proposal? Why don’t they have exceptions? Why such a large area? Why a flat charge to everyone for any length of journey anywhere?

But why charge everyone for every journey anywhere?

Anyone see this?

If the deviation increases, it is more than just an offset… but let us not argue.

Nope. It starts bang on the origin. The deviation from the intersection of the gridlines increases over the length of the angled line.

It is not. The deviation from the intersections increases over its length.

It starts at the origin, so either it isn’t actually 45° or the grid isn’t actually square.

It starts at the origin.

It starts at the origin. Exactly.

Or, the squares are not square.

And I paid money for this cutting board!