Latest news with #PeterDazeley
Wales Online
a day ago
- Business
- Wales Online
Households with toilet roll in bathroom urged to make simple change to save cash
Households with toilet roll in bathroom urged to make simple change to save cash The average household spends £428 a year on loo roll, but you could cut this figure down significantl, here's how Toilet rolls might save you more than you think (Image: Peter Dazeley via Getty Images ) UK households could pocket an extra £360 annual saving toilet roll by heeding a straightforward tip, according to specialists. It has been revealed that the typical home forks out £428 each year on loo roll, but this amount can be slashed considerably. Splurging on this essential item is costing UK families hundreds unnecessarily. Fresh insights from Victorian Plumbing, who scrutinised the habits of 1,000 individuals, indicate that the average Brit utilises eight sheets of toilet paper with every lavatory visit. This amounts to roughly 56 sheets per day. Victorian Plumbing also delved into the cost of supermarkets' own-brand toilet rolls compared to the nation's favourite brand, analysing prices at the big four grocers. Just using two sheets lesser per toilet visit can save you significant amount (Image: Photo by Brook Rieman via Getty Images ) The price for these own-brand sheets averages at 21p each. This reveals that the UK's leading brand is charging over 150 per cent more per sheet than the mean cost of supermarket own-brand alternatives, equating to an annual saving of £184.32 for each household, reports Birmingham Live. Alex Woods a bathroom specialist at Victorian Plumbing, commented: "With inflation, supply chain pressures, and raw material shortages all pushing prices up, the humble toilet roll is starting to no longer be the minor household expense it once was. Article continues below "While costs may be rising, there are still simple, practical steps we can take to reduce usage and the costly impact. "When one small habit costs the UK nearly £3 billion a year, every sheet really does count." For money-saving tips, sign up to our Money newsletter here Cheeky Wipes suggests: "Instead of adding a 9 pack to your weekly shopping (average household of 4 usage), buy in bulk if you've got the storage space. !Comparing on Ocado, buying a 9 pack of Cheeky Panda works out at 88p per roll. By comparison, 24 pack of their loo roll will work out at 83p per roll. "Shopping at wholesale type spaces such as Costco etc can obviously save even more." The company also advises: "Another cost effective way to save money on toilet roll is to use less of it. "If the 'average' person uses 8 to 9 sheets of toilet paper, reducing it by 2 sheets per visit will save 25% off your annual spend." It adds wryly: "Of course let's be honest. Most men will only use loo roll for a poo. "And women shouldn't need to use anywhere near that amount for a pee. So are some people really using 20 sheets per poo?" Article continues below
New York Post
7 days ago
- Business
- New York Post
NYC snubbed on new ‘10 best hotels in the world' list compiled by expert travel reviewers
La Liste just revealed the top 10 best hotels in the world — and none of the luxury ones in New York made the elite list. With so many incredible travel destinations — it's hard to narrow down the best places to stay, but the Paris-based company known for its hotel and restaurant rankings took on the difficult task of doing just that. To compile this list, the site looked at 400 different hotel reviews given by press — which then went through an algorithm system to create a score on a 100-point scale, as explained by Bloomberg. 'We are a synthesis of all the rankings and ratings that we find knowledgeable,' Helene Pietrini, managing director of La Liste, told Bloomberg. As a result, 10 different hotels around the world all ranked No. 1 — six of them are in Europe, and none in the tri-state area. Who made the cut? 1. La Réserve Paris This 5-star hotel is one that tourists — and travel reviewers — can't get enough of. 'The property has exceptional service, some great food and beverage outlets, a pool and spa, and a beautiful historic design. If money is no object, it really is hard to choose between the top properties in Paris — it all depends on what part of town you prefer staying in, and what kind of vibe and design you like,' One Mile At A Time wrote. 2. Cheval Blanc Paris Jing Daily described this Paris hotel as one that 'doesn't just offer accommodation at a level where everything is exceptional. What truly sets it apart is its ability to craft unforgettable moments — moments that I don't think I will ever forget.' 3. The Connaught Hotel in London 4 This London hotel is beloved by many travelers. In Pictures via Getty Images Forbes Travel Guide described this gem of a hotel as 'the perfect base to explore the rest of London, including the theaters of the West End, open spaces of nearby Hyde Park and Green Park and the designer boutiques, galleries, antique stores and restaurants a stone's throw away on Mount Street.' 4. The Savoy in London 4 The Savoy is the second UK hotel to make the elite list. Peter Dazeley Condé Nast Traveler described The Savoy as 'iconic' and a 'rumored favorite hotel of Marilyn Monroe and Marlene Dietrich (who has a suite named after her), the Savoy was the first hotel in Britain to have elevators and electric light, and it is still at the top of its game.' 5. Il San Pietro di Positano, Italy This hotel in Positano, Italy, is a favorite amongst travelers. 'Despite its celebrity status and litany of services, it remains a family affair – impeccably run by the Cinque family for over 50 years. The lush gardens and lemon groves, the fabulously romantic terrace bar and Michelin-starred restaurant Zass all offer mesmerizing Amalfi-coast views; down by the water, there's a pool, spa, tennis court, solarium and the al fresco beachside restaurant, Carlino's,' the Telegraph raved. 6. J.K. Place Capri, Italy This hotel on the island of Capri, Italy, is described as anything but ordinary. Forbes said this is 'one of the only hotels in Capri located right on the ocean. It has 22 unique rooms and suites. Many rooms have small balconies facing the sea, and the penthouse suite has a long private terrace with a panoramic view of the Gulf of Naples.' And the cost for these spectacular rooms? Seafront rooms reportedly go for $2,000 a night in the summer. 7. Mandarin Oriental, Bangkok, Thailand 4 Expert reviewers couldn't say enough good things about this Thailand hotel. Getty Images Condé Nast Traveler explained that the Mandarin Oriental is 'Bangkok's first hotel is still, despite some extremely stiff competition from any number of more recent arrivals, it best — as well as one of the finest examples anywhere on earth of a grande dame that knows exactly how to grow old gracefully. Arrive by boat and you'll see the hotel from the Chao Phraya River, as nature intended.' 8. The Peninsula Shanghai, China Forbes Travel Guide had nothing but amazing things to say about the Peninsula Shanghai. 'The service is impeccable from the moment you arrive at the Five-Star hotel until you check out. And don't worry if your Chinese is limited to ni hao ('hello'): Everyone on the staff speaks English well and could not be more gracious or more readily available to help.' 9. The Peninsula Chicago 4 The Peninsula Chicago was the only US hotel to make the top 10 list. Getty Images It's a high honor for The Peninsula Chicago to make this elite list, since it's the only US option. Experts at the Pursuitist describe this hotel as 'the perfect upscale destination for families, dignitaries, celebrities, and affluent business travelers. With numerous delicious fine-dining options, the stunning pool, spacious rooms and suites, there is so much to adore about the legendary Peninsula Chicago.' 10. Rosewood Mayakoba, Playa del Carmen, Mexico This hotel is known for its modern rooms and quiet atmosphere with stunning views. 'A stay at Rosewood Mayakoba is just as much about luxury as it is about immersing oneself in the wilds of Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula,' Conde Nast Traveler wrote.
Forbes
03-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
LLY Stock Too Cheap At $750?
LONDON,ENGLAND - MAY 30: A photo illustration of a Mounjaro pen on May 30 2025 in London, England. ... More Mounjaro is a treatment for weight loss and type 2 diabetes. (Photo by Peter Dazeley via Getty Images) Question: Why would you pay 81 times earnings for AbbVie stock when you can buy LLY for a similar valuation of 76 times earnings? You wouldn't, especially when you consider three simple facts: Safe Bet? While Eli Lilly (LLY) might not be a traditional "safe haven" stock, its past performance during market shocks offers some perspective. During the 2022 inflation shock, LLY stock saw a 19% decline, and it fell 23% during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic market correction. However, when compared to the broader market, LLY has demonstrated relative resilience. The S&P 500 index experienced a more significant peak-to-trough decline of 25% during the 2022 inflation shock and a 34% fall during the COVID-19 pandemic correction. Furthermore, LLY stock has already absorbed some significant impact, having fallen over 20% from its 52-week high of over $970 to current levels below $750. In contrast, if you're more even handed, consider the Trefis High Quality strategy, has outperformed the market with more than 91% returns since inception - as evident in HQ performance metrics. Separately, see – Merck Stock's Ticking Keytruda Time Bomb Winner In Obesity Drugs: If you generally believe the obesity is here to stay and with or without healthcare policy changes, Eli Lilly may not be a bad long-term bet, given its current position. Layer on the fact that Lilly, with its superior efficacy, is a leader in this obesity treatment race. The market for GLP-1 drugs is expected to grow to $150 billion by 2030, with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk currently dominating through their GLP-1 drugs that have collectively generated over $40 billion in sales last year. Worry about whether daily pills, weekly injections, or combination therapies will win the battle. The race may be too early to call, but Lilly is positioning itself across multiple fronts with both injectable Zepbound and promising oral GLP-1 formulations showing nearly 8% weight loss in trials. What Could Go Wrong? Eli Lilly's earnings could disappoint, and its rapid growth might slow from 30% to around 20% in the coming years. This potential slowdown could be due to increased competition in the obesity treatment market, as more pharmaceutical companies are achieving success with their clinical trials. Notably, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Viking Therapeutics, and Roche are all developing promising therapies that could challenge Eli Lilly's market position. Then there is the unexpected, unimagined. Definitely do not touch this if you can't stand more downside from here. Worse thing you could do is sell at that point. Instead talk to an adviser who's seen four bear markets in the last 30 years about Trefis HQ strategy plus other clever ways you can take advantage in the current market. Clue: much money is made in this market, if you don't lose your nerve. All said, if you're a long term investor and want to invest and forget for the next 3-5 years, Eli Lilly right now could be an interesting entry point.
Wales Online
27-05-2025
- Business
- Wales Online
The exact date Nationwide customers discover if they get a £100 bonus
The exact date Nationwide customers discover if they get a £100 bonus The building society's board will meet later this week to make a decision on the Fairer Share payment scheme, which will see Nationwide customers receive a £100 bonus Nationwide will soon announce whether it's going to reintroduce its Fairer Share payment scheme (Image: 2023 Peter Dazeley/Getty ) Millions of Nationwide customers are on tenterhooks to discover if they will be the lucky recipients of a complimentary £100 from the building society. Nationwide is poised to disclose whether it's going to reintroduce its Fairer Share payment scheme for a third consecutive year. Introduced in 2023, the Fairer Payment scheme rewards members for their loyalty by compensating those who conduct their regular banking with Nationwide. The £100 gift is a result of Nationwide's customer ownership model which favours profit distribution over dividend payments to shareholders. Nationwide is scheduled to release its financial figures this week on Thursday, May 29, revealing whether the bonus payout will continue into this year, specifying the sum, payment timing, and eligibility criteria. Towards the end of 2025, Debbie Crosbie, Nationwide's chief executive, mentioned that they were "well positioned" to award another Fairer Share payment to eligible members. Still, the final decision hinges on the building society's fiscal results. Anticipations are high that customers might receive an update as soon as 7am, reports the Mirror. For money-saving tips, sign up to our Money newsletter here A representative announced: "Nationwide's board will decide on a Fairer Share payment for 2025 and it will depend on our financial performance. The decision will be announced as part of our full year results 29 May." Article continues below Last year, Nationwide Building Society distributed £385 million to 3.85 million customers following an announcement of £2 billion in profits. The bonus payments were made between June 13 and June 28, suggesting that customers might have to wait until June for another potential round. Nationwide boasts over 16 million members, but not all are eligible for the payout; only 24% received it last year. In 2023, 3.4 million customers were awarded the bonus. Eligibility for the payment last year required members to have a current account and either a minimum of £100 in savings or at least £100 outstanding on a mortgage as of 31 March 2024. Additional criteria applied depending on the specific current account or mortgage held. This news follows closely on the heels of Nationwide's separate £50 "Thank You" payment to around 12 million customers, which occurred between April 9 and May 14, distinct from the £100 "Fairer Share" payment. The "Big Nationwide Thank You" was a token of appreciation for members' support during the acquisition of Virgin Money. The £2.9 billion transaction was finalised in October 2024, with a total of £60 million being disbursed. Article continues below To qualify for the £50 payment, you must have held a savings or current account, or mortgage, at the end of last September. You must have also made at least one transaction through your current account or savings, or maintained a balance of at least £100 in your current account, savings or mortgage, in the 12 months leading up to the end of September 2024.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The cruelty of isolation: There's nothing ‘humane' about how we treat the condemned
Photo by Peter Dazeley | Getty Images On March 19, I served as a witness to the execution of a man named Aaron Gunches, Arizona's first since 2022. During his time on death row, he begged for death and was ultimately granted what is likely more appropriately described as an emotionless state-assisted suicide. This experience has profoundly impacted me, leading to deep reflection on the nature of death, humanity, and the role we play in our final moments. When someone is in the end stages of life, we talk about hospice care, comfort, care, easing suffering and humane death. We strive for a 'good death' — a peaceful transition. I've seen good ones, and I've seen bad, unplanned ones. But what happens when that transition is forced into stark, lonely isolation? Is there anything truly humane about dying alone? The answer, I believe, is a resounding no. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX We prioritize pain management and physical comfort, but we often neglect the profound, undeniable and universal need for human, emotional and spiritual connection. To die alone, separated from others by sterile glass, or a cold, impersonal screen, is an act of profound cruelty. Even for those who have reached a point where death feels like a release, the absence of human touch, of a familiar voice, of a loving spiritual presence, strips away the last glimpse of dignity in death. 'But protocols!' they say. 'Safety!' they shout. Yet, the risk of a gentle hand held, a whispered word of comfort or permission to let go, pales in comparison to the soul-crushing certainty of a solitary end. The fear of infection or injustice, however valid, should never outweigh the fundamental human need for connection in our final moments. Imagine the sterile room, the beeping machines, the cold, hard bed or gurney. Imagine the fading breaths, the growing fear, the desperate, unspoken plea for someone, anyone, to be there. And then, imagine the silence. The absolute, deafening silence of a room emptied of empathetic life, witnessed only by machines or perhaps a stranger or unseen observer. We are more than just physical bodies. We are beings of spirit, of emotion, of connection. To deny that spiritual presence, to treat death as a purely clinically physiological event, is to diminish the very essence of what it means to be human. Simply knowing that a loved one's spirit departed this earth when they were alone is like knowing something precious and irreplaceable was torn away. It is a wound that festers and never fully heals, akin to having your soul torn apart, leaving a hollow shell, like Voldemort. How can we justify robbing people of their last moments of connection, of dignity, of peace? The answer, I fear, is that we cannot. And the darkness of that realization should haunt us all. This is cruel punishment. The kind of cruel punishment prohibited by the United States Constitution. I don't know what it's like to die alone. I pray I never will. But someone very close to me once did. They died in a room, empty of anyone that truly cared for them, as they faded away. The protocols, the rules, the rigid adherence to organizational procedures, all conspired to keep us apart. I know, with a gut-wrenching certainty that it will haunt me forever, that they died alone. No hand to hold, no voice to soothe, no loving gaze to meet theirs. Just the cold, clinical silence. The image of their final moments, devoid of human warmth, is a scar etched onto my soul. It is a constant, agonizing reminder of the inhumanity we inflict when we prioritize rules over compassion. It is a testament to the fact that a 'humane' death, without human presence, is a contradiction in terms. This leads me to the chilling, inescapable shadow of the death penalty. How can we, as a society, justify the deliberate, state-sanctioned taking of a life, especially when we often impoverish the human experience of that final act? Through rules and protocols we ourselves have written, we have stripped away the condemned's humanity, confined them to a solitary cell for the night(s) before their execution, and, at least in the State of Arizona, denied them of even one in-person visit in the 10 days leading up to their execution. We deny them the comfort of human touch, the solace of familiar voices. We orchestrate the death with clinical precision in a stark, white room with only prison guards present. When the time comes to finish the act, like a play, we open black curtains for unseen witnesses behind glass to watch, forbidding them from being a mere six feet closer. When the time of death is announced, the curtain immediately closes. The witnesses to this play sit behind the glass on backless benches so close together they can reach out and touch. They are a mixture of victims, media, state officials and their guests, and those requested by the person being executed. Surely their opinions, thoughts and emotions differ widely, and yet they are forced to be in the same room, unable to freely express themselves as they watch. It is just observation with an unspoken expectation of silence. While it troubles me to say this, we have come a long way from the nooses and electric chairs of our past that sit on display in the Pinal County Historical Museum just a mile down the road from where Arizona prisoners are executed. By simply paying a bit more for a licensed and trained phlebotomist, we have surpassed our barbaric ways of poking and prodding our way to death, which sometimes led to an execution taking hours, instead of minutes. This is to the credit of the current administration of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry. They have shown a true desire for transparency and a more human-centric model of running our prisons. For this I have a great deal of respect, and I will be forever grateful. The department's director asked me, a self-proclaimed anti-death penalty individual, to bear witness to an execution — a step toward transparency through ensuring a diverse representation was present to witness the state's most grave action. It is clear that the state has worked to make this death quick and painless, regardless of how willing Aaron was to die. Arizona recently commissioned a report on death penalty procedures, and while it was scrapped before it could be completed, the fact that the study was conducted indicates that government officials continue to search for humane ways to die — and this in a country where we are still debating whether convicted criminals deserve a humane death. From witnessing this execution, it seemed to me that the definition of success under the new administration was for the death to be 'swift and without complication.' In the press conference after the execution, state officials proclaimed that the execution went as planned — it was a success. However, for those of us in the witness room, the time could not go quickly enough. I myself watched and counted as the 32 minutes went by so slowly. I saw pain in Aaron's eyes. In his face I saw breathing that seemed as though it was not a natural way to pass. While this certainly seems more 'humane' than the stories of past executions, why an individual who practically led the charge in his own execution could not simply take a pill (like those used in physician-assisted suicide/dying) is beyond comprehension. After witnessing the execution. I left the prison complex in Florence and traveled to a place I have considered sacred and safe for decades, St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox Monastery just south on Highway 79. I stood in the Chapel of St. Nicholas, catching my breath and allowing my heart to slow down. Of all the things I had experienced that morning, nothing came to mind more than how alone Aaron looked during his final moments. I wondered what harm could come from allowing him to have a loved one sitting by his side, holding his hand, and telling him it's okay to let go. I have done this, been next to people I loved in their dying moments and told them it's okay. In doing so, I willingly gave them a piece of my heart. But through witnessing the isolation of Aaron's death, a piece of my heart was ripped from me. I can physically feel it. Regardless of the egregiousness of crimes committed, how can we think we possess the moral authority to extinguish a human life while it lays alone in cold silence? Can we be forgiven for doing so? Can we truly think it's OK? To die alone, separated from others by sterile glass, or a cold, impersonal screen, is an act of profound cruelty. Even for those who have reached a point where death feels like a release, the absence of human touch, of a familiar voice, of a loving spiritual presence, strips away the last glimpse of dignity in death. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the isolation and loneliness of death were almost universally condemned. 'The darkness of our societal choices,' some called it. But is the death penalty, with its procedural isolation and finality, really any different? Whether it's a pandemic protocol or a state-sanctioned execution, the fundamental question remains: how can we claim to be a humane society when we so readily inflict the cruelty of isolation in our final acts? How can we justify robbing people of their last moments of connection, of dignity, of peace? The answer, I fear, is that we cannot. And the darkness of that realization should haunt us all. This is cruel punishment. The kind of cruel punishment prohibited by the United States Constitution. I am against the death penalty, and if it was on my ballot tomorrow, I would vote to end it. But the current reality is that the death penalty is legal. And, so, should we not demand that our state laws and procedures be as true as possible to the intentions of the Constitution? Should we not strive to improve our protocols around the death penalty? To reduce the cruelty of isolation and continue to search for ways to make it more swift and less painful? I am a career civil servant. I have worked my entire life to improve government policies, procedures, and operations. I believe in the government's ability to critically assess itself, learn from mistakes, and take action to improve fidelity to laws and better serve the public. As a witness, I feel obligated to ensure we continue to find a more humane way of execution, one with dignity and human connection. Let us remember that we are not just bodies, but souls. Should we have the chance to be with someone in their final moments, the most humane act we can offer is simply our presence, one soul to another. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
