April 1Apr 1 41 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:You didn't watch it.Therefore your conclusion is idiotic.I'm not talking to the wall anymore.Pointless waste of time responding to you.It is entirely worthless attempting to communicate with people who won't listen to evidence, or read information,You know by now that I read transcripts and not watch propaganda video because I can skim the talking points that I am already familiar with.
April 1Apr 1 14 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:Why it is important to be open to changing your mind -Of course most of us are prepared to do that but it should be a result of a scientific debate, free of prejudices. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Something you should take more into account.
April 2Apr 2 https://inews.co.uk/news/grenfell-was-tragic-but-everyone-dies-in-the-end-says-reforms-new-housing-chief-4330442
April 2Apr 2 2 hours ago, Peter.Bridge said:https://inews.co.uk/news/grenfell-was-tragic-but-everyone-dies-in-the-end-says-reforms-new-housing-chief-4330442And?Of course only Reform has individuals who make stupid and obnoxious remarks...Oh - hang on - there's more....The HeraldAbbott denies attack on nurses was racistLABOUR MP Diane Abbott yesterday defended herself against charges of racism after criticising the appointment of ``blonde, blue-eyed'' Finnish…Seven Labour Party MPs convicted of fraud in relation to MP's Expenses scandal.https://share.google/aimode/58cnTqsp6S8HBr9qrMPs of various parties involved in sexual scandals:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/18/list-of-sexual-misconduct-allegations-made-against-mpsLabour MP Joanie Reid's husband arrested in spying for China scandal.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/mar/04/parliament-arrests-suspicion-spying-chinaRachel Reeves faked her CVBBC NewsQuestions raised over Rachel Reeves’s CV and expenses aft...The BBC has established the Chancellor left the Bank of England nine months earlier than she states in her LinkedIn profile.Labour Transport Secretary, Lousie Haigh quits after admitting fraud offence over supposedly stolen phone insurance claim when she still had the phone.BBC NewsTransport secretary Louise Haigh quits after fraud offenc...Haigh's departure is the first cabinet resignation under Sir Keir Starmer's government.Mandelson Arrested over accusations of Misconduct in Public Office.BBC NewsMandelson's bail conditions lifted after misconduct in pu...Lord Peter Mandelson has had his passport returned by police, his lawyers say.I could go on and on and on with this, but what would be the point?Sometimes politicians turn out to be less upstanding or less wise than we hoped, and sometimes - VERY OFTEN in fact, they turn out to be a lot worse than that, and this affects all parties. It is my strong feeling, based on long observation that Labour MPs are very often less upstanding than we would expect them to be. This is not because Labour is less upstanding than other parties, but it is a phenomenon of human stupidity and human weakness. Since all MPs, and councillors are human, they are prone to fail as human beings often do. They are also in general rather over confident and this feature can lead people to take stupid risks.I am not sure why Peter, who I hold in some esteem, would post that link to rubbish Reform, but it won't wash - especially while it is obvious that stupid remarks and unwise and criminal actions are so widespread among politicians in general.
April 2Apr 2 @Peter.BridgeAnd by the way Peter - the building sector IS stifled by vast and useless over regulation. It is virtually impossible to build anything in the UK - especially any large scale development without MASSIVE multi thousand page documentation and huge expense.The reason nothing gets built of any scale in Britain these days without going vastly over budget and over time, is over-regulation, The South Koreans can build a nuclear power station at about one third the cost of a UK one and they can complete it in a fraction of the ridiculous multi decade time that we do. This is well understood and Labour to their credit have also said so since they got into power.If a newt be found on a building plot, or a bat or a birds nest, the whole thing stops. Ridiculous.We are paying millions of pounds on electricity bills to stop Scottish offshore wind farms from generating when the wind blows because the power line infrastructure between Scotland and England can not carry the load these wind farms can produce. It is called 'curtailment' I think.The reason we can't put up more power lines is that the regulation and opportunities for special interest groups and NIMBIES to halt such projects are overpoweringly huge.NB - sorry about the two useless blank posts above. I can't find a way to delete two messed up edits which had everything I wrote inside the post I was quoting. Edited April 2Apr 2 by Tony1951
April 2Apr 2 52 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:the building sector IS stifled by vast and useless over regulationI think you have got this wrong. There are large numbers of building consents given to conversion projects that are wilfully delayed by the applicants, at least in Southend-On-Sea. The reason is often economic rather than councils making life difficult for the applicants. Typically, developers buy up some commercial buildings at auctions then apply for conversion to residential. As government is desperate for more new flats, for pensioners as much as startup buyers, consents are given doublequick. Developers then wait for the time is right or put the projects back on the market with development consents.
April 2Apr 2 1 hour ago, Tony1951 said:The South Koreans can build a nuclear power station at about one third the cost of a UK one and they can complete it in a fraction of the ridiculous multi decade time that we doI think you got this wrong too. South Korea has a very advanced metallurgy sector, about the best in the world for precision. They used to be the go to builders for LNG tankers until the Chinese wiped the floor of them by lowering the typical price by 30%.We have lost a lot of industrial capability. That's the main reason.
April 2Apr 2 On the Grenfell fire - some countries allowed their high rise buildings to be clad with highly inflammable cladding (despite the repeated warnings from experts) and some countries didn't - see the Peter Apps book.That Labour MP with a penchant for submarine captains is hilarious - I'm sure someone could come up with a funnier headlinehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15697375/Labour-MP-wife-alleged-China-spy-behaved-inappropriately-TWO-naval-officers-working-secret-nuclear-subs.html Edited April 2Apr 2 by Peter.Bridge
April 2Apr 2 9 hours ago, Peter.Bridge said:On the Grenfell fire - some countries allowed their high rise buildings to be clad with highly inflammable cladding (despite the repeated warnings from experts) and some countries didn't - see the Peter Apps book.That Labour MP with a penchant for submarine captains is hilarious - I'm sure someone could come up with a funnier headlinehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15697375/Labour-MP-wife-alleged-China-spy-behaved-inappropriately-TWO-naval-officers-working-secret-nuclear-subs.htmlWe discussed this at length about two years ago Peter. I know you read and recommended a book on the subject. I have not read it, but I do think I recall that the regulating body in charge of permitting building materials and methods of construction and use, had been all over this matter long before the fire at Grenfel and the organisation granting permits for use of the material involved in the fire, was more concerned with keeping good relations with the large building constructors than in responding to information that indicated that some materials were dangerous in high rise applications. The problem was not that we did not have enough regulation, but that regulations were not being applied. My earlier point is not really affected by the horrible Grenfel incident. We DO have massive over regulation in infrastructure building. It stifles the construction of all kinds of vital infrastructure. The Conservatives said so and so do Labour and so does Reform. I have no idea what the Green Party and the LIb Dems say - and I don;t care what they say. Oh and by the way on your initial post about inappropriate remarks made by a candidate and potential minister from Reform - he has been sacked now.On the other hand - Polanski is still leader of the Greens - but is past is VERY VERY dodgy. Take a look at this -BBC NewsZack Polanski stood by breast enlargment hypnosis claimA newly unearthed interview from 2013 casts doubt on the Green Party leader's claim to have apologised.If that episode and apparent hypnotherapy business of his doesn't scream out 'WRONG 'UN' - I don't know what does.
April 2Apr 2 2 hours ago, Tony1951 said:The problem was not that we did not have enough regulation, but that regulations were not being appliesThere is a logical fallacy "distinction without a difference"It doesn't matter if the regulations were not clear ( they weren't ) or they were not being applied (they weren't). What matters is high rise buildings in the UK were being clad with inflammable materials and experts were warning of the dangers. In many other countries this didn't happen. I'm pretty sure Peter Apps will have written about this in one of his Spectator columnEta https://spectator.com/article/blairs-government-cant-escape-blame-for-the-grenfell-disaster/ Edited April 2Apr 2 by Peter.Bridge
April 3Apr 3 9 hours ago, Peter.Bridge said:There is a logical fallacy "distinction without a difference"It doesn't matter if the regulations were not clear ( they weren't ) or they were not being applied (they weren't). What matters is high rise buildings in the UK were being clad with inflammable materials and experts were warning of the dangers. In many other countries this didn't happen. I'm pretty sure Peter Apps will have written about this in one of his Spectator columnEta https://spectator.com/article/blairs-government-cant-escape-blame-for-the-grenfell-disaster/It is perfectly clear that the regulations were in a mess and so was the organisation responsible for their enforcement. This organisation was distinct from government - it was a QUANGO. QUANGOS were supposed to be made independent of the vagaries of government, they were put forward as a kind of pure, technocratic form of governance - separated from political considerations and variability as governments changed and ideology altered with that process. In fact they were and still are a disaster and are part of the reason UK government is impotent in important matters. They are bureaucratic, and devoted to process, rather than action. This last thing is now an especially British disease, as is handing political power to any independent body - something we have done here now for thirty some years. Anyway - I am still absolutely convinced having listened to politicians of diverse parties all saying the same thing - infrastructure building here is paralysed by enquiries, vast paper-work, judicial reviews, and a mass of nonsense. ALL Parties say so. If you want to build anything, you will be stopped and forced into a massive process. We NEED all kinds of infrastructure change. We do not need planners and judges and nimbies bringing everything to a halt when a high capacity transmission line is needed through Northumberland to carry the planned 40 Gigawatts of Scottish wind farm capacity to England. I think we now have 6 - 7 Gigawatts of grid capacity between Scotland and England. The estimate is that it might be done by 2034. WHY? Why not 2028?We have the self same problem in building nuclear power. Every new station is treated as a brand new project with vast struggle for permissions. You can build an identical station to already operating ones, on a site which already has nuclear power and it is treated as if neither of these things had ever been done before.44,000 pages of paperwork were submitted in 2020 concerning the building of Sizewell C. The permissive process took TEN YEARS! It will take another twelve years to build - if it proceeds according to plan. In South Korea the whole process would take half the time.
April 3Apr 3 I think and so do some political parties including Labour, Conservatives and Reform that infrastructure projects are being held up by over regulation AND far too many stumbling blocks such as judicial review and enquiries which can last years.Some parties such as Reform and the Conservatives also think the role of judicial review needs to be cut back. Judicial review gained massive traction with the Senior Courts Act in 1981 and started being used to stop just about any development by nimbies and political activists, more recently - predominantly since the mid 2000s.Google says that 58% of major infrastructure projects are subject to judicial review and long delays, not to mention millions of pounds of additional costs while almost none of these reviews result in any withdrawal of the right to build them - so in the end - they achieve nothing but obstruction, delay and massive costs. They also have led to defensive design decisions which add to cost and delay even when no judicial review happens.Powers to bring spurious review procedures need to be removed.Until Blair made a pile of law changes, it was the constitution of the uk that Parliament is supreme and what it enacts, is law. This is no longer the case and Parliament is helpless and powerless to achieve policies that the population has voted for.Almost a thousand years of British constitution has been over turned by Blair. The Human Rights Act specifically binds all future parliaments to ONLY make laws which sit well with the views of judges at the ECHR.THIS MUST END NOW!!! The Human Rights Act needs to be altered or repealed. This does not mean we abandon respect for human rights, but that WE have control of what human rights mean, and must regain that control, so that our elected parliament, is the arbiter of our law.For example it is INSUFFERABLE that judges in a foreign court can act to prevent the UK government deporting seriously bad foreign criminals - such as the organisers of child sexual exploitation and rape. How can it be right that such people are spuriously prevented from being deported? HOW?And yet there are many such criminals living here among us after interventions by so called 'human rights lawyers. Whose interests do these people serve? There is literally no one in the general population who wants this situation to continue. Thanks Mr Blair. Just another debacle you left us with.https://share.google/aimode/oBbD7gVAXoUHL8lKW Edited April 4Apr 4 by Tony1951
April 3Apr 3 Applications for nuclear reactors are so large (often tens of thousands of pages) because they must prove, in extreme detail, that the plant will be safe under all conceivable conditions. Regulators require this level of depth because the consequences of failure are severe.Here’s what drives the volume:1. Safety above everythingNuclear energy is tightly regulated by bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency and national regulators (e.g. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the U.S.).Applicants must demonstrate:The reactor won’t melt down under normal or abnormal conditionsRadiation won’t escape into the environmentMultiple backup systems exist (redundancy + fail-safes)2. “What if everything goes wrong?” analysisDesigners must analyze extreme scenarios such as:Earthquakes, floods, fires, aircraft impactTotal power loss (like in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster)Human error and system failuresEach scenario requires detailed modeling, simulations, and documentation.3. Complex engineering systemsA nuclear plant isn’t just a reactor—it includes:Cooling systemsContainment structuresControl systems and softwareWaste handling and storageEvery component must be specified, tested, and justified.4. Environmental and site studiesApplications include massive environmental reports covering:Impact on local ecosystemsWater use and thermal pollutionLong-term radioactive waste management5. Quality assurance & traceabilityRegulators require proof that:Every component meets strict standardsMaterials are traceable (down to batch numbers)Construction and operation follow exact proceduresThat means huge amounts of documentation, logs, and verification records.6. Legal and public scrutinyNuclear projects face:Public consultationsLegal challengesInternational oversightSo applications must be thorough enough to stand up in court and public debate.The volume isn’t bureaucracy for its own sake—it’s about reducing risk to near zero. Nuclear is one of the few industries where you must prove safety not just in practice, but on paper, in advance, for decades into the future.If you are interested in nuclear power, check out the philosophy behind the design of the Thorium reactor by Copenhagen Atomics. Their test reactor produces 100MW heat source. The price tag is $50 million, running cost is $2 million per annum, all in, including fuel and maintenance. It works out about 9 cents per kwh of thermal energy.The company describes its reactor core as shaped like an onion, with the outermost layer being a breeding blanket of 2,000 liters of Lithium Fluoride /Thorium Fluoride salts at 600°C used to transmute thorium into fissile Uranium-233.[10] The next layer consists of heavy water at 80°C.[10] Farther inward is the pumped fuel salt layer, about 200 liters of Lithium 7 Fluoride/Uranium Tetrafluoride, which enters the core at 600°C and exits at 700°C, and serves as both fuel and coolant.[10] The innermost layer is the moderator, more heavy water at 80°C, with the total amount of heavy water being ~1,200 liters.[10] The layers are separated by stainless steel, in early versions, but later probably by silicon carbide composites. 2 to 3 centimetres of yttria stabilised zirconia insulate the heavy water from the hot salts.[10]The design requires that fission products are removed online (while the reactor is operating).[10]
April 3Apr 3 Is Trump riding a train to hell?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RDZ6_3M-b4 Edited April 3Apr 3 by Woosh
April 3Apr 3 1 hour ago, Woosh said:Is Trump riding a train to hell?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RDZ6_3M-b4I think he identifies with Kong
April 4Apr 4 Trump is a rampant narcissist, a habitual liar, an ignorant oaf, and a man devoid of any decency. He espouses the politics and the manners of the gutter - the sewer might be more apt, in fact. He is spiteful, intemperate, and shows clear signs of dementia.I think that all of this is manifestly true. To make matters worse, he has very wide powers and is surrounded by yes men who will do nothing to express dissent from any impulse he has.People like Hegseth are like the apparatchiks who surrounded Hitler - they will scruple at nothing. They are like the architects of the Nazi Final Solution - the Fuhrer indicates that he wants something done, and they rush to oblige him. Edited April 4Apr 4 by Tony1951
April 4Apr 4 I would look at how Trump won in 2016, lost in 2020 and won in 2024.Despite all his known defects, the system that got him elected has proven that with enough invested money, it can do same with any defective politician who does not need to know what his or her future job entails.That system is at the root of the misery inflicted on so many millions of human beings on this earth. Firstly NATO. It was setup to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union was disbanded, NATO should have been disbanded but Western countries like Germany and UK saw NATO as beneficial to their economy rather than just a defensive alliance. That was a big mistake that was exploited by the precursor of the system that gave Trump to the USA and us. US sell their weapons to NATO countries at a big profit and implicate NATO into offensive operations at the behest of the USA. The lure if economic benefits was stronger than sense. We now pay the price, with the Ukraine war and now the Iran war.If the current war in the Middle East has a silver lining, it is to give us the opportunity for change. Carney and Denmark show the way forward. The US wants completion of the pipeline going south from Canada and new bases in Greenland. Time to say not so fast to Trump.
April 4Apr 4 2 hours ago, Woosh said:I would look at how Trump won in 2016, lost in 2020 and won in 2024.Despite all his known defects, the system that got him elected has proven that with enough invested money, it can do same with any defective politician who does not need to know what his or her future job entails.That system is at the root of the misery inflicted on so many millions of human beings on this earth.Firstly NATO. It was setup to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union was disbanded, NATO should have been disbanded but Western countries like Germany and UK saw NATO as beneficial to their economy rather than just a defensive alliance. That was a big mistake that was exploited by the precursor of the system that gave Trump to the USA and us. US sell their weapons to NATO countries at a big profit and implicate NATO into offensive operations at the behest of the USA. The lure if economic benefits was stronger than sense. We now pay the price, with the Ukraine war and now the Iran war.If the current war in the Middle East has a silver lining, it is to give us the opportunity for change. Carney and Denmark show the way forward. The US wants completion of the pipeline going south from Canada and new bases in Greenland. Time to say not so fast to Trump.I already told you weeks ago that it was not money that got Trump elected. Harris spent more than he did.Harris and Biden had $997 millionTrump had $388 millionSource: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-vs-harris-fundraising-race-harris-outraised-trump-3-to-1-with-last-pre-election-report/As I said last time - the Democrats tried to con the public that Biden was capable, but when he wasnt reading an autocue the public saw that he was a senile man well past his best and hopelessly out of his depth.They also saw and heard Kamalla Harris claiming that he was in great shape. This shocking dishonesty paid them back.DON'T LIE TO THE PUBLIC AND EXPECT THEM TO SUPPORT YOU FOR OFFICE.
April 4Apr 4 3 hours ago, Tony1951 said:Harris and Biden had $997 millionTrump had $388 millionIf you think Trump could spend only $388 millions and won then you clearly do not understand American fundraising for presidential elections. Do look up:What PACs and Super PACs areUnpaid advertisingWhat Musk and Bezos did to support Trump's election.Look up also the role of Murdoch in 'creating' Trump going back to decades ago, the role of those billionaires with control interest in the mainstream social media, newspapers and TV channels. They give to their candidate something a lot more important than free advertising: the total lack of messaging for the other candidates.Here is a quick except from ChatGPT about the 2024 election:Total (estimate) $4.4 billions. Make America Great Again Inc.Most independent spending overall in 2024.Led by GOP operatives to support Trump election efforts with the largest spending total of any Super PAC in 2024.America PACCreated by Elon Musk and allied donors specifically to support Donald Trump’s campaign, including canvassing and get‑out‑the‑vote efforts.Reported to have spent around $261 million in the cycle.Preserve America PACTraditional pro‑Trump Super PAC; received key contributions from Miriam Adelson and spent over $100 million supporting Trump in 2024.etc. Just ast AI.
April 6Apr 6 The Range shopper did a poo on shelf before leaving shophttps://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/25996836.range-shopper-poo-shelf-leaving-shop/
April 6Apr 6 Gold overtakes U.S. Treasuries as the world’s largest foreign reserve asset in 2026 — can gold challenge the U.S. dollar’s dominance and hold its ground?https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/gold-overtakes-u-s-treasuries-as-the-worlds-largest-foreign-reserve-asset-in-2026-can-gold-challenge-the-u-s-dollars-dominance-and-hold-its-ground/articleshow/126420128.cms?from=mdr
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.