Obviously, the |BBC has been trying to overlook the anti-Semitism in the Labour party, taking an inordinate amount of time to even mention it, let alone anything like the full range of terrorist associations of the beloved Leader Corbyn.
Today they took an initiative of their own. Acting at the behest of lobby groups, they did a lovely puff piece for the wind power industry. A kind of Ponzi scheme, but most people would understand it as a scam.
Basically, the main highlight was the chat with three people. A University professor, a representative of the company installing the huge offshore turbines and someone from RenewableUK, the trade body. Now, the sound of them all singing from the same hymn sheet is to be expected, but rarely if ever have I seen one comment being enthusiastically nodded at by another.
We were told that offshore wind turbines are really easy to erect (done in one day - after the foundations are in place), that wind now generates 15% of our electricity and is the cheapest form of electricity generation in the UK.
BBC man accepted all of this with saying a thing, either because he knows nothing about the subject he is 'reporting' on, or because he is happy to comply with nonsense.
Offshore wind generation is the most expensive way to provide electricity. I have just checked and wind is currently supplying 1.03GW or 2.91% of our electricity and gas 48.47%. Gas of course will provide that power whenever you want it, wind farms only when the wind is in the Goldilocks zone, not too fast and not too slow. Oh, and the offshore turbines don't last anywhere near as long as predicted and no one has costed the bill for removing any wind turbines.
In fact, if we started insisting that the 'Green' industry told the truth, by using correct labels then traditional power generation would be called reliable and 'renewables', unreliable.
It is indeed an interesting blend, the Greens with their Marxist anti-capitalist agenda to get us to spend our wealth on a chimera and the greedy crony capitalists building the largely pointless wind and solar farms (that only 'farm' subsidies).
Thursday, 6 September 2018
Friday, 10 August 2018
Big Beast Boris's Burqa
You measure a man by what he does rather than what he says. Being completely gender non-specific (rather than fluid, a non-existent type), Theresa May has rather proved that point. Boris has his heart in the right place, but is a bit inept when trying to play political games. Now, whilst that might suggest he is ill suited to politics, this would only be correct if you believe the sole purpose of politics is to corrupt the meaning of words, rather than sometimes manipulating.
As such he has an appeal to the ordinary voter, precisely because he doesn't seem like the machine politician with which our parliament is very much plagued. In that regard, we emulate the US, but perhaps without quite the flamboyance. But isn't it ever this way between us and the USA?
In the extraordinarily closed world of the Westminster bubble this is something that is understood, even if the general workings of the world outside the bubble is magnificently beyond their recognition.
When I was being obliged to sit still, face the front and listen, I was given history as it was instinctively taught within the British culture. When the story of the peasants revolt was told to me, what actually sank into my consciousness was, that the people had become fed up with the way those in charge ran things. Sure there was detail, but it was the overview, the impact at a subconscious level amongst those peasants that was what I understood.
We have the same today with the decision to leave the European Union, a vanity project of shining hubris, too bright for anyone to see. Except the we-own-the-law, different old British. When Ted Heath lied with great passion about how happy he and a bunch of other blithering idiots would be, if only he could be allowed to join and be a part of this lovely edifice, we obliged his whim. A bureaucrats wet dream.
As loving, obliging parents we let him have his way and in an almost patronising way ignored the politicians playing with their tea set, dolls house, train set and cars for decades, in the firm belief that 'Europe' was over there and of no consequence, really, to us. It didn't matter. Nobody knew or cared who 'their' MEP was, what they did or even bothered to vote in Common Market, EEC, EC, EU elections.
And in this way the British were the ideal dupes dreamt of by the founders of the Project; the people had to be kept in the dark, the mission of the Project had to be kept from them. After all, like full blown Communism, who in their right mind ever voted for that? And European history is full enough of revolutions (or in Britain petitions), to suggest care and secrecy were needed.
If you are old enough to have lived some decades under the EU, ask yourself a question; can you remember ever hearing a debate about the EU? You can't, because (as with Man Made Global Warming) you got lots of instructions about how important it was (that was actually propaganda), but no unbiased information and certainly no debate.
The truth is dangerous to any organisation that is really, at root a bunch of international gangsters.Empire builders by the back door. Consider, why are we so afraid of the consequences of leaving the EU? Sure the detail would be messy, like any cancer, it seeks to spread throughout your system, but really it is because we know, we have seen that the EU cannot be trusted. It is not a machine based on logic and it certainly has no intention of allowing International Law to interfere in its malice (Sudetenland, anyone?)
So, the actual objection, the reason why Britain still managed, despite a long time under incessant propaganda, to vote down the EU membership, was because at a visceral level we just knew it was a wrong 'un. Maybe in these deliberately uneducated times, you need to look to the American Constitution to understand the true British character, the way we do government, because it was based on British constructs. Magna Carta means more to them than us, because we have been told that freedom doesn't matter any more.
But the reason we left the burgeoning empire of the EU, was the same as for the Americans. They did not seek to break with Britain and initially the broad feeling was that injustice must be dealt with as a detail, no greater change was required. But, imperial and impervious the upstarts had to be ignored. And so they proved that another course was open to them.
But they still continued to base their lives and laws on what they knew and what worked; British law and custom. 'We the people' is a great start to any sweeping document of state and it cannot be said too often that Britain evolved (through some trial and error) the best system of government in an imperfect world. We own the law and our politicians fear the people. In the EU, the State owns the law and the people need to fear their government.
The biggest mistake? Drawing attention to the EU. Once we started looking at what they were up to, what they stood for, what they did and intended to do it became inevitable that we would revolt (or, send in a petition). And we did. 52 to 48% is a decent difference and remember, for once a lot of people voted. That it was not wider is entirely due to the success of the weakening of our education system, but enough traditional British grit remained.
But then, in all the agonised ranting about how damaging leaving a bureaucrats paradise will be, we forget that the very act of being subsumed by the EU was illegal. Sure we talked of 'joining', but when you are handing political and economic power to a foreign government, it mirrors the way Poland 'joined' Germany in 1939.
No British government has that power, that authority and yet Ted Heath did it. The Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath. And what mocking irony it is that, at the denouement of our dalliance with corruption, we should be under the 'guidance' of such a similar creature, the British Prime Minister Theresa May. Ted Heath lied shamelessly to get us in and Theresa May is lying just the same, to keep us in.
There used to be a fire safety advert that ran 'Get out, stay out and get the Brigade out', which is excellent advice regarding the EU (though here it would be the Brigade of Guards).
So, all the confected outrage about Boris and some misquotes about what he said and intended, is actually about how scared a bunch of ne'er do well politicians are of Boris Johnson and the likelihood that he would do a proper job of Brexiting. The Burqa is peculiar, it's like a bag and it is a symbol of the beginnings of extremist attitudes. We would do well to heed wise words.
As such he has an appeal to the ordinary voter, precisely because he doesn't seem like the machine politician with which our parliament is very much plagued. In that regard, we emulate the US, but perhaps without quite the flamboyance. But isn't it ever this way between us and the USA?
In the extraordinarily closed world of the Westminster bubble this is something that is understood, even if the general workings of the world outside the bubble is magnificently beyond their recognition.
When I was being obliged to sit still, face the front and listen, I was given history as it was instinctively taught within the British culture. When the story of the peasants revolt was told to me, what actually sank into my consciousness was, that the people had become fed up with the way those in charge ran things. Sure there was detail, but it was the overview, the impact at a subconscious level amongst those peasants that was what I understood.
We have the same today with the decision to leave the European Union, a vanity project of shining hubris, too bright for anyone to see. Except the we-own-the-law, different old British. When Ted Heath lied with great passion about how happy he and a bunch of other blithering idiots would be, if only he could be allowed to join and be a part of this lovely edifice, we obliged his whim. A bureaucrats wet dream.
As loving, obliging parents we let him have his way and in an almost patronising way ignored the politicians playing with their tea set, dolls house, train set and cars for decades, in the firm belief that 'Europe' was over there and of no consequence, really, to us. It didn't matter. Nobody knew or cared who 'their' MEP was, what they did or even bothered to vote in Common Market, EEC, EC, EU elections.
And in this way the British were the ideal dupes dreamt of by the founders of the Project; the people had to be kept in the dark, the mission of the Project had to be kept from them. After all, like full blown Communism, who in their right mind ever voted for that? And European history is full enough of revolutions (or in Britain petitions), to suggest care and secrecy were needed.
If you are old enough to have lived some decades under the EU, ask yourself a question; can you remember ever hearing a debate about the EU? You can't, because (as with Man Made Global Warming) you got lots of instructions about how important it was (that was actually propaganda), but no unbiased information and certainly no debate.
The truth is dangerous to any organisation that is really, at root a bunch of international gangsters.Empire builders by the back door. Consider, why are we so afraid of the consequences of leaving the EU? Sure the detail would be messy, like any cancer, it seeks to spread throughout your system, but really it is because we know, we have seen that the EU cannot be trusted. It is not a machine based on logic and it certainly has no intention of allowing International Law to interfere in its malice (Sudetenland, anyone?)
So, the actual objection, the reason why Britain still managed, despite a long time under incessant propaganda, to vote down the EU membership, was because at a visceral level we just knew it was a wrong 'un. Maybe in these deliberately uneducated times, you need to look to the American Constitution to understand the true British character, the way we do government, because it was based on British constructs. Magna Carta means more to them than us, because we have been told that freedom doesn't matter any more.
But the reason we left the burgeoning empire of the EU, was the same as for the Americans. They did not seek to break with Britain and initially the broad feeling was that injustice must be dealt with as a detail, no greater change was required. But, imperial and impervious the upstarts had to be ignored. And so they proved that another course was open to them.
But they still continued to base their lives and laws on what they knew and what worked; British law and custom. 'We the people' is a great start to any sweeping document of state and it cannot be said too often that Britain evolved (through some trial and error) the best system of government in an imperfect world. We own the law and our politicians fear the people. In the EU, the State owns the law and the people need to fear their government.
The biggest mistake? Drawing attention to the EU. Once we started looking at what they were up to, what they stood for, what they did and intended to do it became inevitable that we would revolt (or, send in a petition). And we did. 52 to 48% is a decent difference and remember, for once a lot of people voted. That it was not wider is entirely due to the success of the weakening of our education system, but enough traditional British grit remained.
But then, in all the agonised ranting about how damaging leaving a bureaucrats paradise will be, we forget that the very act of being subsumed by the EU was illegal. Sure we talked of 'joining', but when you are handing political and economic power to a foreign government, it mirrors the way Poland 'joined' Germany in 1939.
No British government has that power, that authority and yet Ted Heath did it. The Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath. And what mocking irony it is that, at the denouement of our dalliance with corruption, we should be under the 'guidance' of such a similar creature, the British Prime Minister Theresa May. Ted Heath lied shamelessly to get us in and Theresa May is lying just the same, to keep us in.
There used to be a fire safety advert that ran 'Get out, stay out and get the Brigade out', which is excellent advice regarding the EU (though here it would be the Brigade of Guards).
So, all the confected outrage about Boris and some misquotes about what he said and intended, is actually about how scared a bunch of ne'er do well politicians are of Boris Johnson and the likelihood that he would do a proper job of Brexiting. The Burqa is peculiar, it's like a bag and it is a symbol of the beginnings of extremist attitudes. We would do well to heed wise words.
Monday, 30 July 2018
Hot Weather, Man Made Global Warming And Hot Air
It's been hot recently and not just here in the UK. So the Global Warming leeches come slithering out to say it is extreme (it isn't), it's due to Global Warming (it isn't), which is caused by Man pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (or Carbon as 'scientists' insist on calling it. Carbon is an element, C, and Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is a compound. They confuse the two because they think Carbon sounds worse to you. And they know you are thick, because you believe in Global Warming even though they can't prove it).
I mentioned in an earlier post what is causing our current weather and that, by observation, we can see there is no Global Warming taking place. Now, let's be clear Global Warming as a natural, cyclical event is real. It is warmer now than when the Thames froze over in 1814, but less warm than in medieval or Roman times.
Also, CO2 is a potential 'greenhouse' gas, meaning it can help trap heat inside the atmosphere and thus warm the planet. This was first postulated in the 1960's and after research it was decided that Man's output of CO2 is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and will have no noticeable affect on climate. We have no idea what might be a 'tipping point', as temperatures have been much lower at times when atmospheric CO2 was very much higher.
We don't know how all the interlocking natural relationships work to respond to changes. But greenhouse gas is a sound theory. More effective than CO2 is Methane and by far the most causative of weather and climate variations is water vapour. Or clouds as we more commonly refer to them.
So, if the theory is sound but we don't understand the mechanisms and interactions sufficiently, how is Global Warming a thing? Why are governments so stressed about it and reactive? (To be fair all government has actually done is increase taxes on us to give to rich people as subsidies for wind farms and solar farms that don't really help much and not all the time).
Global Warming is being used by anti-capitalists to get idiot Western governments to ruin their economies chasing a chimera and by scientists and activists (like Greenpeace and WWF) to get grants and funding. No Global Warming, no money.
How do the scammers have all this proof of Global Warming then? Well, they don't. Most stories they tell are demonstrable lies which the lazy MSM journalists just cut and paste. Any refutation is ignored by the media. The 'proof' the pushers produce is completely, 100% based on computer models that they programmed with biased inputs and consequently always predict Global Warming.
The models are predicated on CO2 having an influence way out of kilter with observable fact and beyond anything we have direct knowledge of. You might as well believe in fairies.
I mentioned in an earlier post what is causing our current weather and that, by observation, we can see there is no Global Warming taking place. Now, let's be clear Global Warming as a natural, cyclical event is real. It is warmer now than when the Thames froze over in 1814, but less warm than in medieval or Roman times.
Also, CO2 is a potential 'greenhouse' gas, meaning it can help trap heat inside the atmosphere and thus warm the planet. This was first postulated in the 1960's and after research it was decided that Man's output of CO2 is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and will have no noticeable affect on climate. We have no idea what might be a 'tipping point', as temperatures have been much lower at times when atmospheric CO2 was very much higher.
We don't know how all the interlocking natural relationships work to respond to changes. But greenhouse gas is a sound theory. More effective than CO2 is Methane and by far the most causative of weather and climate variations is water vapour. Or clouds as we more commonly refer to them.
So, if the theory is sound but we don't understand the mechanisms and interactions sufficiently, how is Global Warming a thing? Why are governments so stressed about it and reactive? (To be fair all government has actually done is increase taxes on us to give to rich people as subsidies for wind farms and solar farms that don't really help much and not all the time).
Global Warming is being used by anti-capitalists to get idiot Western governments to ruin their economies chasing a chimera and by scientists and activists (like Greenpeace and WWF) to get grants and funding. No Global Warming, no money.
How do the scammers have all this proof of Global Warming then? Well, they don't. Most stories they tell are demonstrable lies which the lazy MSM journalists just cut and paste. Any refutation is ignored by the media. The 'proof' the pushers produce is completely, 100% based on computer models that they programmed with biased inputs and consequently always predict Global Warming.
The models are predicated on CO2 having an influence way out of kilter with observable fact and beyond anything we have direct knowledge of. You might as well believe in fairies.
Water, Water - Nowhere
With a prolonged hot, dry spell visiting the UK recently the focus has been on Global Warming. There have been no records broken, it hasn't been as unendingly hot as 1976 and this one (as most are here), was caused by the Jetstream being pushed North by unusually cold water in the North West Atlantic.
Nothing to do with Global Warming, which isn't a thing with no temperature rise for over 20 years and certainly no identified mechanism at work, caused by Man (such as CO2).
What should be the focus is the water supply. Now, with a wet early start to the year the supplies were at a high level, but nothing lasts forever. But more damaging is the fact that, despite the massive influx of people to the UK since the moron Tony Blair allowed unrestricted immigration, no new capacity exists.
Yes, that's right, no new reservoirs to meet the additional needs. Mad eh? Well the reason is even more insane. Following an EU directive we must have less water supply than is needed by design. This is to make us use less water, which we must do due to Global Warming (which as stated earlier doesn't exist).
So, you may be familiar with the population increase, in the late Eighties it was 56,953,861 and is now 65,511,097 but when was the last reservoir built? 1989, that's when. In Devon. Unbelievably, no added capacity from before unlimited immigration began.
And then there are the legendary scale water leaks, which the water companies really cannot be bothered to fix despite legal obligations and targets. This is because our politicians, currently scrabbling to keep all the real work of governing in Brussels, are weak and believe in fairies, which is what Global Warming is.
Nothing to do with Global Warming, which isn't a thing with no temperature rise for over 20 years and certainly no identified mechanism at work, caused by Man (such as CO2).
What should be the focus is the water supply. Now, with a wet early start to the year the supplies were at a high level, but nothing lasts forever. But more damaging is the fact that, despite the massive influx of people to the UK since the moron Tony Blair allowed unrestricted immigration, no new capacity exists.
Yes, that's right, no new reservoirs to meet the additional needs. Mad eh? Well the reason is even more insane. Following an EU directive we must have less water supply than is needed by design. This is to make us use less water, which we must do due to Global Warming (which as stated earlier doesn't exist).
So, you may be familiar with the population increase, in the late Eighties it was 56,953,861 and is now 65,511,097 but when was the last reservoir built? 1989, that's when. In Devon. Unbelievably, no added capacity from before unlimited immigration began.
And then there are the legendary scale water leaks, which the water companies really cannot be bothered to fix despite legal obligations and targets. This is because our politicians, currently scrabbling to keep all the real work of governing in Brussels, are weak and believe in fairies, which is what Global Warming is.
Friday, 6 July 2018
Pretty Girls In Fast Cars
I enjoy seeing a successful woman in an expensive car, be it Bentley or Porsche, I think it is highly appealing. My feelings are the exact opposite if the female is actually the wife of a rich man and does nothing with her day but fret about herself, book treatments and meet up with others in her air-head circle to talk about reality TV.
Basically, I have always been attracted to clever women. I am not threatened or intimidated by them, which is it seems, amazingly common with the male of the species. I like to think I am a fair judge, but can be ridiculously naïve at times. It has never occurred to me that men and women are anything other than different versions of the same thing. I never considered that they might be inherently inferior.
Likewise, meeting people who originate from places other than these shores who may have a different colour skin, I also just take them on the merit they present. Hell, when I was at school we saw that African people were darker skinned and that was as far as my thinking went; people lived in Africa too, but they had a darker skin.
I didn't make the 'intellectual' leap to conclude that this made me superior. Even when the distinct lack of any parallel with the societal developments in Europe was considered, when pushed all I would do is wonder why. Perhaps it was the heat?
So, if I met an 'African' I wasn't surprised by the colour of his skin. This means I am not Left wing. They shriek about it in perpetual surprise. Culture however, is something I am less forgiving about. God may have decided the colour of your skin, but you choose your culture.
If your culture is to treat women as inferior to men (because the men in question are fundamentally weak and resort to the tactics of the bully to gain and maintain ascendency), then I detest you. Or maybe your culture is to lie and cheat in order to gain advantage and power. This means you exhibit the fundamentals of Marxism. You see others as existing only for what you can get out of them.
Obama was elected because he was black and that is very wrong, both because his colour should be irrelevant, but also because black people should never have been deprived of opportunity, which would probably have meant a black President ages ago. But Obama was also a terrible President, not because he was black, but because he is a snake. Like our own Tony Blair, he was just out for himself.
Theresa May is terrible not because she is a woman or that she is white, but because she lacks principles. (And it seems, a spine). She has been told by the nation to take the UK out of the EU; she is a politician so she is bound, by Parliament's promise to obey that specific demand, but also because MP's are there to serve the public will. Additionally, she presented a party manifesto to get elected to power that emphatically restated that commitment.
Now, the wholly unsurprising attitude of the bureaucrats around her (that we should not leave the greatest agglomeration of bureaucrats the world has ever seen) is convincing her to do their bidding instead. Which is weak and unprincipled.
She keeps saying the opposite of what she does, but maybe I am wrong and will be surprised. Maybe she will say to the EU that she has tried to play nice but enough is enough, now stop being childish and sort things out properly. Maybe.
Basically, I have always been attracted to clever women. I am not threatened or intimidated by them, which is it seems, amazingly common with the male of the species. I like to think I am a fair judge, but can be ridiculously naïve at times. It has never occurred to me that men and women are anything other than different versions of the same thing. I never considered that they might be inherently inferior.
Likewise, meeting people who originate from places other than these shores who may have a different colour skin, I also just take them on the merit they present. Hell, when I was at school we saw that African people were darker skinned and that was as far as my thinking went; people lived in Africa too, but they had a darker skin.
I didn't make the 'intellectual' leap to conclude that this made me superior. Even when the distinct lack of any parallel with the societal developments in Europe was considered, when pushed all I would do is wonder why. Perhaps it was the heat?
So, if I met an 'African' I wasn't surprised by the colour of his skin. This means I am not Left wing. They shriek about it in perpetual surprise. Culture however, is something I am less forgiving about. God may have decided the colour of your skin, but you choose your culture.
If your culture is to treat women as inferior to men (because the men in question are fundamentally weak and resort to the tactics of the bully to gain and maintain ascendency), then I detest you. Or maybe your culture is to lie and cheat in order to gain advantage and power. This means you exhibit the fundamentals of Marxism. You see others as existing only for what you can get out of them.
Obama was elected because he was black and that is very wrong, both because his colour should be irrelevant, but also because black people should never have been deprived of opportunity, which would probably have meant a black President ages ago. But Obama was also a terrible President, not because he was black, but because he is a snake. Like our own Tony Blair, he was just out for himself.
Theresa May is terrible not because she is a woman or that she is white, but because she lacks principles. (And it seems, a spine). She has been told by the nation to take the UK out of the EU; she is a politician so she is bound, by Parliament's promise to obey that specific demand, but also because MP's are there to serve the public will. Additionally, she presented a party manifesto to get elected to power that emphatically restated that commitment.
Now, the wholly unsurprising attitude of the bureaucrats around her (that we should not leave the greatest agglomeration of bureaucrats the world has ever seen) is convincing her to do their bidding instead. Which is weak and unprincipled.
She keeps saying the opposite of what she does, but maybe I am wrong and will be surprised. Maybe she will say to the EU that she has tried to play nice but enough is enough, now stop being childish and sort things out properly. Maybe.
Saturday, 30 June 2018
Grenfell Blame Dodging
So far the Grenfell enquiry has heard lots of emotional stories from residents involved in the tragedy, who unsurprisingly were greatly affected. So what the point was, at an enquiry is beyond me. Now we have moved on to the response of the fire service. Personally, I would now be looking at the building and the work that had been done, the basic safety of the building and the responses to complaints from residents.
Then talk to the people completing the work and the materials used, who ordered what materials, who had oversight of that and who signed off on it. Only then would I move on to the emergency services role. But we are where we are, though I hope this is not to set a blame profile in people's minds, to prepare us for a full-on, several coats of whitewash final report.
We have had more emoting, which is a little poor from an emergency service but very much the fashion these days, very au courant. I'm sure it isn't part of a sympathy garnering agenda. The officer in charge and who maintained the standard response to a tall building fire of 'stay put', now much criticised, could not remember ever having any training about what to do in that specific circumstance. A sort of "I'm not to blame, how was I supposed to know" plea.
But then I hear (not from the enquiry -odd surely?) that this same officer had recently visited Grenfell for a fire safety check. In the discussion where I heard this a Fire Brigade Union rep, after giving the obligatory references to the officer being "brave" and "dedicated" which no-one had queried, said that he didn't know about the flammable cladding and the combustible window frames, amongst a list of other things he didn't know.
But the whole point is that he is there to check and to know and then to advise. A pathetic attempt at an excuse, but then, Union.
I was responsible for regulatory matters in setting up a temporary charity ice rink. It was in an old supermarket building that we adapted, so there was a lot to get right. There was a sprinkler system so we had to avoid impeding its operation.
There was netting over the top of the ice pad because hockey was going to be played and we needed to protect the lights from being hit by a puck. The fire safety guys were concerned about this, but I assured them, from my own knowledge and life experience that water would pass through a mesh with like, two inch holes in it. They were not happy though.
We had to get our rink expert to contact the manufacturer of the netting, in Canada to obtain the fire safety tests that the netting had undertaken and passed. I told them I was fairly sure that in the history of history an ice pad had never caught fire, but they just drew breath and said they needed that from an expert.
So, apparently some tiny little community charity ice rink should be held to standards so high they exceed the borders of sanity, but a multi-million pound project on peoples' homes should involve people who don't know much about fire safety, apparently.
I mean we now understand Grenfell had a faulty smoke extraction system, no smoke alarm or detectors inadequate fire doors and even some missing. Then there were the building materials and the way the work was being done. But it is beyond reason to expect an expert in fire safety to notice any of this?
Seventy two people died. When is it going to be important enough that we actually hold people to account, which would put us a good way along towards making sure it doesn't happen again. Because currently there exists a belief that senior and 'important' people (on big salaries, often paid by us) cannot be expected to be held responsible when they mess up. So it does happen again.
If we are starting with the fire service, my question would be why our senior fire officers do not respond to a situation as it presents itself, but follow 'protocols' that were thought up in an office and given to the fire service as a tick box.
You see 'stay put' requires firemen (non gender specific reference) to go into a burning building to rescue people if the fire becomes uncontained by their initial efforts. As was apparent from the outset, the fire was spreading at an unprecedented and unexpected speed. But standard operating instructions were followed as if nothing was unusual.
And by doing that, really brave indeed heroic firemen then go into a raging building to rescue those doing as they had been told. Or, God help us, they are ordered to stay put themselves and watch people die, as their failing senior officers now go on to the health and safety tick box of not putting their officers in danger. Convincing themselves, in the words of Shoesmith (Baby P), that while there had been an unhappy outcome, they could not be to blame because they had ticked all the boxes.
One thing I know: we all deserve better.
Then talk to the people completing the work and the materials used, who ordered what materials, who had oversight of that and who signed off on it. Only then would I move on to the emergency services role. But we are where we are, though I hope this is not to set a blame profile in people's minds, to prepare us for a full-on, several coats of whitewash final report.
We have had more emoting, which is a little poor from an emergency service but very much the fashion these days, very au courant. I'm sure it isn't part of a sympathy garnering agenda. The officer in charge and who maintained the standard response to a tall building fire of 'stay put', now much criticised, could not remember ever having any training about what to do in that specific circumstance. A sort of "I'm not to blame, how was I supposed to know" plea.
But then I hear (not from the enquiry -odd surely?) that this same officer had recently visited Grenfell for a fire safety check. In the discussion where I heard this a Fire Brigade Union rep, after giving the obligatory references to the officer being "brave" and "dedicated" which no-one had queried, said that he didn't know about the flammable cladding and the combustible window frames, amongst a list of other things he didn't know.
But the whole point is that he is there to check and to know and then to advise. A pathetic attempt at an excuse, but then, Union.
I was responsible for regulatory matters in setting up a temporary charity ice rink. It was in an old supermarket building that we adapted, so there was a lot to get right. There was a sprinkler system so we had to avoid impeding its operation.
There was netting over the top of the ice pad because hockey was going to be played and we needed to protect the lights from being hit by a puck. The fire safety guys were concerned about this, but I assured them, from my own knowledge and life experience that water would pass through a mesh with like, two inch holes in it. They were not happy though.
We had to get our rink expert to contact the manufacturer of the netting, in Canada to obtain the fire safety tests that the netting had undertaken and passed. I told them I was fairly sure that in the history of history an ice pad had never caught fire, but they just drew breath and said they needed that from an expert.
So, apparently some tiny little community charity ice rink should be held to standards so high they exceed the borders of sanity, but a multi-million pound project on peoples' homes should involve people who don't know much about fire safety, apparently.
I mean we now understand Grenfell had a faulty smoke extraction system, no smoke alarm or detectors inadequate fire doors and even some missing. Then there were the building materials and the way the work was being done. But it is beyond reason to expect an expert in fire safety to notice any of this?
Seventy two people died. When is it going to be important enough that we actually hold people to account, which would put us a good way along towards making sure it doesn't happen again. Because currently there exists a belief that senior and 'important' people (on big salaries, often paid by us) cannot be expected to be held responsible when they mess up. So it does happen again.
If we are starting with the fire service, my question would be why our senior fire officers do not respond to a situation as it presents itself, but follow 'protocols' that were thought up in an office and given to the fire service as a tick box.
You see 'stay put' requires firemen (non gender specific reference) to go into a burning building to rescue people if the fire becomes uncontained by their initial efforts. As was apparent from the outset, the fire was spreading at an unprecedented and unexpected speed. But standard operating instructions were followed as if nothing was unusual.
And by doing that, really brave indeed heroic firemen then go into a raging building to rescue those doing as they had been told. Or, God help us, they are ordered to stay put themselves and watch people die, as their failing senior officers now go on to the health and safety tick box of not putting their officers in danger. Convincing themselves, in the words of Shoesmith (Baby P), that while there had been an unhappy outcome, they could not be to blame because they had ticked all the boxes.
One thing I know: we all deserve better.
Solving Crime
 |
|
Thames
Valley Police are appealing for information following a report of a theft of
a motorbike from Cutlers Mews, Neath Hill.
Between 3am & 6am
on Saturday 30 June a black motorbike vehicle was
taken from Cutlers Mews Neath Hill without keys.
We
are appealing for anyone who may have witnessed the offences taking place or
who may have information to call our 24-hour enquiry Centre on 101, quoting
reference 43180198091
If
you don’t want to speak directly to police you can contact the
independent charity Crimestoppers
anonymously on 0800 555 111.No personal details are taken, information is not
traced or recorded and
you will not go to court.
Set up a Neighbourhood Watch Scheme in your area Would you like to bring your community closer together, or do you have concerns about burglary, antisocial behaviour or the general environment in your street? Through Neighbourhood Watch you can help the Police and your neighbours to strengthen your community. You can make your area a better place to live. The scheme is free to join
Consider
setting up a NHW Scheme in your area, for more information email MK.Community.WatchCoordinator@thamesvalley.pnn.police.uk
|
This was emailed out by Thames Valley Police about a vehicle taking in Milton Keynes. They want to hear from anyone who actually saw the theft occurring, which is fine but exceedingly unlikely. If they had given a full description of the vehicle such as manufacturer and registration there is a greater chance someone would have seen it and could help. Someone might know where it is now, or who has it.
They might even see it being ridden around the streets, but reporting every black 'motorbike vehicle' you see may not be terribly helpful.
It strikes me that the police issue lazy rubbish like this because they are not that sure how to go about solving crimes, which also seems from anecdotal evidence at least, to be because they don't really care about solving crime either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)