At the outset, the Labour opposition made it clear that the coronavirus emergency was no time for party politics and they would work constructively with the government. This of course, is what the nation would hope to be the case and is entirely sensible. It's what people wanted to hear.
It didn't last long. Unpleasant people struggle to be something different and so it is with Labour. (I lose track. Are we now on New New Labour? That sounds awfully like it is run by a vacuum from the Tellytubbies). Whether there is an alliance between the Unions and not-Left-enough Keir Starmer is not clear, but they are meshing nicely.
The Unions, suddenly possessed of medical and scientific knowledge as yet denied to everyone else, are refusing any measures to return life and the economy to normal as quickly as possible. Due to the 'risks' of going to work, the teaching Unions are demanding that a) the virus has to have been completely eradicated, b) they will need more money c) everyone should wear masks and d) the roads have to be cleared of traffic, so that they also don't get injured in a car accident.
Teachers must not face any risk. Likewise Tube drivers. Locked away and physically separated from the diseased sardines they haul around, puts they at risk apparently and so, insists the ridiculous mayor and Unions, they shouldn't be 'forced' back either.
Labour object to everything the Tories say (ably supported it has to be said by a completely out of control BBC and Sky, with the papers largely just as spooked). This, and nearly dying, affects Boris strongly and so he continues to ignore any science that might drift in from somewhere other than the useless PHE, NHS England or Imperial College of Hapless Modelling.
The trumpets blare and Boris announces in a statement to the nation his steps to removing lockdown. We are clearer on many aspects of the coronavirus and countries without lockdown seem to have the same rate of infection as those in lockdown. Evidence is mounting that more people have already been infected than previously thought and that, whilst we carefully avoid finding out how many, herd immunity might be achieved at much lower levels than predicted with the Imperial modelling scenario.
So what is announced to an expectant country? You can go to work, if you can't work from home. Which I think is only a slight nuance on what we already had.
Having not offered anything, Labour were obviously stumped with their prepared objections, so they complained that the er, distinctly lacking advice wasn't clear. Apparently, we could 'meet' people in the park as long as social distancing is followed. Oops. When I have taken the dogs for a walk, if I met someone I knew, I spoke to them observing the separation rules.
So, Starmer, who I am very confused to see described in glowing terms, has settled into the kind of policy that he likes and can cope with. Pretty much, Oh no you can't. Widow Twankey indeed.
Monday, 11 May 2020
Wednesday, 15 April 2020
WHO?
Well, I suppose if someone was going to tell the truth about the emperor and his unclothed state, it was going to be Trump
The World Health Organisation is a United Nations body and like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations itself, it is simply a corrupt non-entity.
In the current Covid 19 crisis they are merely talking and trying to tell you just how important they are. But actually, the boss owes his position to the backing of China, who insisted he be given the role and boy, is he happy to do whatever is necessary to repay the debt.
This pompous carbuncle Ghebreyesus, has colluded with the Chinese authorities to hide and lie about the coronavirus, despite any worldwide consequences. Just as the UN is basically a talking shop of no importance for First World countries, but an excellent cover for despots and dictators.
Again, the IPCC is another make-work project to energise anti-capitalist agendas. Interestingly, the whole Climate Change scam is based entirely on computer modelling (which to be on the safe side, is predicated to find climate change), just like the modelling that terrorised our government into closing down our economy.
In this instance, with no substantive information about the virus being available, a model by Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, said 500,000 would die unless the government did what he said. He was also part of the team that decided in 2001, we should slaughter 6 million animals to end a foot and mouth outbreak, against the prevailing worldwide advice on dealing with outbreaks.
This led to the British Prime Minister and those acting on his behalf, including the police to break the law of the time. (Tony Blair subsequently introduced a new law, making his actions legal and that was also retrospective!)
The needless slaughter of healthy animals, not only showed no understanding of animal disease, but additionally led to huge financial loss and upheaval in UK farming. This kind of disruption seems to be a desired dramatic outcome of a Ferguson projection, as if it is a goal.
Tony Blair gave him an OBE.
A lockdown, such as that which this strange individual insisted was the required action, does absolutely nothing in relation to the disease, except hide from it. This protects the NHS from being swamped of course, which makes sense to buy time to increase capacity. But what did Ferguson suggest from there? It seems, stay in lockdown forever. Pray. And, oh yeah, keep paying his salary.
Naturally, the Western media has gone into overdrive about how ridiculous it is to turn your back on the leading international health organisation leading the way on coronavirus. There is no evidence to support this assertion, but it's what WHO is supposed to do so, well it must be doing it (big government never does anything wrong in the minds of the Left media - look at Soviet Russia and China, Venezuela and North Korea).
But then PHE, a kind of mini-me WHO is supposed to protect the UK from things exactly like coronavirus, but working for a living doesn't seem to have occurred to them. Have you ever seen Yvonne Doyle actually answer a question?
Wouldn't it be lovely if our leaders acted decisively and cut all funding to the WHO, sacked the leadership at PHE and told Neil Ferguson to go and clean toilets.
The World Health Organisation is a United Nations body and like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations itself, it is simply a corrupt non-entity.
In the current Covid 19 crisis they are merely talking and trying to tell you just how important they are. But actually, the boss owes his position to the backing of China, who insisted he be given the role and boy, is he happy to do whatever is necessary to repay the debt.
This pompous carbuncle Ghebreyesus, has colluded with the Chinese authorities to hide and lie about the coronavirus, despite any worldwide consequences. Just as the UN is basically a talking shop of no importance for First World countries, but an excellent cover for despots and dictators.
Again, the IPCC is another make-work project to energise anti-capitalist agendas. Interestingly, the whole Climate Change scam is based entirely on computer modelling (which to be on the safe side, is predicated to find climate change), just like the modelling that terrorised our government into closing down our economy.
In this instance, with no substantive information about the virus being available, a model by Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, said 500,000 would die unless the government did what he said. He was also part of the team that decided in 2001, we should slaughter 6 million animals to end a foot and mouth outbreak, against the prevailing worldwide advice on dealing with outbreaks.
This led to the British Prime Minister and those acting on his behalf, including the police to break the law of the time. (Tony Blair subsequently introduced a new law, making his actions legal and that was also retrospective!)
The needless slaughter of healthy animals, not only showed no understanding of animal disease, but additionally led to huge financial loss and upheaval in UK farming. This kind of disruption seems to be a desired dramatic outcome of a Ferguson projection, as if it is a goal.
Tony Blair gave him an OBE.
A lockdown, such as that which this strange individual insisted was the required action, does absolutely nothing in relation to the disease, except hide from it. This protects the NHS from being swamped of course, which makes sense to buy time to increase capacity. But what did Ferguson suggest from there? It seems, stay in lockdown forever. Pray. And, oh yeah, keep paying his salary.
Naturally, the Western media has gone into overdrive about how ridiculous it is to turn your back on the leading international health organisation leading the way on coronavirus. There is no evidence to support this assertion, but it's what WHO is supposed to do so, well it must be doing it (big government never does anything wrong in the minds of the Left media - look at Soviet Russia and China, Venezuela and North Korea).
But then PHE, a kind of mini-me WHO is supposed to protect the UK from things exactly like coronavirus, but working for a living doesn't seem to have occurred to them. Have you ever seen Yvonne Doyle actually answer a question?
Wouldn't it be lovely if our leaders acted decisively and cut all funding to the WHO, sacked the leadership at PHE and told Neil Ferguson to go and clean toilets.
Monday, 30 March 2020
Give Me Hope, Help Me Cope, With This Heavy Load
Apologies to the late George Harrison for stealing his lyrics, but they seem to fit the times.
It is the essence of the absence we are faced with currently; a lack of hope. Hope is the prospect of things getting better, the light at the end of the tunnel.
What hope is the government giving us? It's going to get worse? Nope, don't think that would cut it. Their strategy for dealing with the outbreak? Well, if they have a strategy it's a closely guarded secret, with less leaking than at any time in the history of government.
The indicators to look for, as to when we can start returning to normal? No idea.
Whilst the information from and indeed even the access to the senior medical figures to answer media questions (even if none of them seem to think any analysis of the issue, leading to proper and searching questions, should trouble their empty little heads), is laudable, when did they get to make policy?
Surely anyone would realise that 'this thing will last six months at least, reviewed every two to three weeks' would be interpreted as 'lockdown for six months'. Because actually, that's what you said.
The government urgently needs to get the message across that there is hope. And then explain why. Now if the reason they can't is because they don't have a plan then we probably are all doomed, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.
May I help?
The challenges are - stopping too many people getting seriously ill at once
limiting the disease transmission
planning for future prevention
increasing medical preparedness for higher levels of demand
We can only deal with this virus with knowledge. In the long term a vaccine, but in the short term lethality and spread. We don't have this information. Also, we could do with dialling down the panic in the NHS. The theme is that this is apocalyptic and a tsunami is coming, so doctors and nurses live in fear of that.
Then there is the fear of catching it. I'm not sure why we are hearing so much about how scared medical staff are, whilst the general public (well, the young) don't see what the problem is. Maybe it is because the media, with the goal of sensationalism constantly harp on about it and the BBC only interview union representatives, to get expert medical opinion (about what the [Tory] government is doing wrong).
Politicians have said they don't like the term lockdown and so I offer an alternative that is at least more accurate - hiding. By locking ourselves away and avoiding associating with others (or avoiding non-essential travel, as the police have interpreted it), we are not catching Covid 19.
We are also not building herd immunity. Why is this important? Well, flu could be just as troublesome, but it isn't because we have had long exposure to it's like and many of us are immune (I'm getting on and I have never had flu). That means the virus struggles to find people it can infect and kill.
Don't get me wrong, it kills loads of people every year, but you don't hear much about it. Apparently, if you have a pre-existing condition and catch flu, which then finishes you off, it gets recorded as death from your pre-existing issue (cancer, for instance). Not flu.
But with Covid 19, anyone dying who tests positive is a coronavirus death. It's illogical and doesn't help us understand the lethality of the disease. How many people does it kill? And it is part of the NHS panic. Another is the closure of hospitals to anything else and often, if you turn up with a temperature they want to send you away, rather than you bring this dangerous disease into their hospital (as happened to my one year old granddaughter).
So, the strategy as I see it should be, test as widely as possible to discover the extent of the disease today. If we find a significant proportion of the population have already had it (and I gather something like 40% would confer herd immunity, or something like it), then bingo! Let's reopen the doors.
If it is only partial then get the 'immune' who have had it back to work wherever possible. But we need to know and we need to stop mis-recording deaths and we need to get our strategy across to the public.
If you go back to the early days, all the warnings fell on deaf ears because we have heard it all before; SARS was going to be the apocalypse, Avian flu would kill us all and the delight at the WHO that this time their claims of doom seemed to be getting wings, didn't help. People were getting it and soon got over it, barely noticing.
The simple point that, as a new virus we could all get it at once and swamp the NHS was never clearly enunciated until Boris' broadcast about lockdown. Now, they are keeping from us how we get over the herd immunity issue, all hiding at home.
This crisis has shown there are some truly great people in the NHS, that many things 'impossible' in our medical system can be in place in hours and that large numbers of the administration is entirely unnecessary. Actually creates problems.
We have also seen the talent of politicians to talk to the wrong experts too often and take on what they are told rather than asking searching questions and making the decisions themselves. Boris originally wanted to get herd immunity as quickly as possible and so tried business as usual.
Now this would risk swamping the NHS, but the reason he really did a U turn on this, was the loudness and shrillness of the 'experts', predicting 250,000 or even 500,000 deaths if he didn't do as they said. Something which, having got their way, their day in the sun, they are now backing away from.
It is the essence of the absence we are faced with currently; a lack of hope. Hope is the prospect of things getting better, the light at the end of the tunnel.
What hope is the government giving us? It's going to get worse? Nope, don't think that would cut it. Their strategy for dealing with the outbreak? Well, if they have a strategy it's a closely guarded secret, with less leaking than at any time in the history of government.
The indicators to look for, as to when we can start returning to normal? No idea.
Whilst the information from and indeed even the access to the senior medical figures to answer media questions (even if none of them seem to think any analysis of the issue, leading to proper and searching questions, should trouble their empty little heads), is laudable, when did they get to make policy?
Surely anyone would realise that 'this thing will last six months at least, reviewed every two to three weeks' would be interpreted as 'lockdown for six months'. Because actually, that's what you said.
The government urgently needs to get the message across that there is hope. And then explain why. Now if the reason they can't is because they don't have a plan then we probably are all doomed, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.
May I help?
The challenges are - stopping too many people getting seriously ill at once
limiting the disease transmission
planning for future prevention
increasing medical preparedness for higher levels of demand
We can only deal with this virus with knowledge. In the long term a vaccine, but in the short term lethality and spread. We don't have this information. Also, we could do with dialling down the panic in the NHS. The theme is that this is apocalyptic and a tsunami is coming, so doctors and nurses live in fear of that.
Then there is the fear of catching it. I'm not sure why we are hearing so much about how scared medical staff are, whilst the general public (well, the young) don't see what the problem is. Maybe it is because the media, with the goal of sensationalism constantly harp on about it and the BBC only interview union representatives, to get expert medical opinion (about what the [Tory] government is doing wrong).
Politicians have said they don't like the term lockdown and so I offer an alternative that is at least more accurate - hiding. By locking ourselves away and avoiding associating with others (or avoiding non-essential travel, as the police have interpreted it), we are not catching Covid 19.
We are also not building herd immunity. Why is this important? Well, flu could be just as troublesome, but it isn't because we have had long exposure to it's like and many of us are immune (I'm getting on and I have never had flu). That means the virus struggles to find people it can infect and kill.
Don't get me wrong, it kills loads of people every year, but you don't hear much about it. Apparently, if you have a pre-existing condition and catch flu, which then finishes you off, it gets recorded as death from your pre-existing issue (cancer, for instance). Not flu.
But with Covid 19, anyone dying who tests positive is a coronavirus death. It's illogical and doesn't help us understand the lethality of the disease. How many people does it kill? And it is part of the NHS panic. Another is the closure of hospitals to anything else and often, if you turn up with a temperature they want to send you away, rather than you bring this dangerous disease into their hospital (as happened to my one year old granddaughter).
So, the strategy as I see it should be, test as widely as possible to discover the extent of the disease today. If we find a significant proportion of the population have already had it (and I gather something like 40% would confer herd immunity, or something like it), then bingo! Let's reopen the doors.
If it is only partial then get the 'immune' who have had it back to work wherever possible. But we need to know and we need to stop mis-recording deaths and we need to get our strategy across to the public.
If you go back to the early days, all the warnings fell on deaf ears because we have heard it all before; SARS was going to be the apocalypse, Avian flu would kill us all and the delight at the WHO that this time their claims of doom seemed to be getting wings, didn't help. People were getting it and soon got over it, barely noticing.
The simple point that, as a new virus we could all get it at once and swamp the NHS was never clearly enunciated until Boris' broadcast about lockdown. Now, they are keeping from us how we get over the herd immunity issue, all hiding at home.
This crisis has shown there are some truly great people in the NHS, that many things 'impossible' in our medical system can be in place in hours and that large numbers of the administration is entirely unnecessary. Actually creates problems.
We have also seen the talent of politicians to talk to the wrong experts too often and take on what they are told rather than asking searching questions and making the decisions themselves. Boris originally wanted to get herd immunity as quickly as possible and so tried business as usual.
Now this would risk swamping the NHS, but the reason he really did a U turn on this, was the loudness and shrillness of the 'experts', predicting 250,000 or even 500,000 deaths if he didn't do as they said. Something which, having got their way, their day in the sun, they are now backing away from.
Tuesday, 17 March 2020
Judge For Yourself
The Daily Mail is carrying a story about Dr Clare Gerada and her experience with Coronavirus. What she says is that she was in New York for a conference and just as she left, New York had declared a state of emergency due to coronavirus. On the Monday she worked as normal with a slight cough. Tuesday she felt very unwell and, unable to get through to 111 went to a coronavirus testing pod. Initially, they refused to test, we are told, because she hadn't been somewhere seen at that time as a threat.
The ex Chairwoman of the Royal College of GP's knew she had coronavirus though, as she never gets ill. She then goes on to describe the horrendous experiences she had as the virus ran through her, including the very rare sore throat. As you can guess from the story being out there, this plucky 60 year old fought it off and is alive and well today.
There are no dates given in the article, so let me fill in some detail. New York declared a state of emergency on 7th March when they had 89 confirmed cases. This means the onset of symptoms occurred on Tuesday 10th March. As today is the 17th, I will assume the story was compiled yesterday, the 16th.
So, our good doctor, ex leader of the GP's union, caught coronavirus in a city of 8.5 million where 89 of them had been confirmed as infected. Let's ignore the going to work with a slight cough, physician first heal thyself, and concentrate on the experience. She caught, suffered immensely and completely recovered in six days.
She went to a pod for testing. The article is very careful here. It says she was initially refused, but she knew she had coronavirus because she is never unwell. I wonder what she would say to a patient running with that line. It doesn't say she was ever tested and I don't know why they would relent. Plus Public Health England guidelines are that if she had the virus the whole pod needs decontaminating.
Plus their first reaction would have been to give her a phone to speak to 111!
So, as you can see none of this story hangs together very well. It seems likely that she is not amongst the 'confirmed' and probably had something else, despite never being ill before.
As an interesting technical detail, which is pertinent when we are talking about the testimony of a doctor, there is also something very casual about her use of language. In a study of the Covid 19 outbreak in China, the analysis states that persons found to have coronavirus almost definitely didn't have Covid 19. Dr. Gerada repeatedly refers to having coronavirus and doesn't mention Covid 19.
Perhaps she is unaware of the research, or doesn't think it matters when addressing the general public. Personally, I like my doctors to be precise and correct in their pronouncements. I figure it kinda goes with the territory.
I leave it up to you as to what you think of this story of an ex union official.
The ex Chairwoman of the Royal College of GP's knew she had coronavirus though, as she never gets ill. She then goes on to describe the horrendous experiences she had as the virus ran through her, including the very rare sore throat. As you can guess from the story being out there, this plucky 60 year old fought it off and is alive and well today.
There are no dates given in the article, so let me fill in some detail. New York declared a state of emergency on 7th March when they had 89 confirmed cases. This means the onset of symptoms occurred on Tuesday 10th March. As today is the 17th, I will assume the story was compiled yesterday, the 16th.
So, our good doctor, ex leader of the GP's union, caught coronavirus in a city of 8.5 million where 89 of them had been confirmed as infected. Let's ignore the going to work with a slight cough, physician first heal thyself, and concentrate on the experience. She caught, suffered immensely and completely recovered in six days.
She went to a pod for testing. The article is very careful here. It says she was initially refused, but she knew she had coronavirus because she is never unwell. I wonder what she would say to a patient running with that line. It doesn't say she was ever tested and I don't know why they would relent. Plus Public Health England guidelines are that if she had the virus the whole pod needs decontaminating.
Plus their first reaction would have been to give her a phone to speak to 111!
So, as you can see none of this story hangs together very well. It seems likely that she is not amongst the 'confirmed' and probably had something else, despite never being ill before.
As an interesting technical detail, which is pertinent when we are talking about the testimony of a doctor, there is also something very casual about her use of language. In a study of the Covid 19 outbreak in China, the analysis states that persons found to have coronavirus almost definitely didn't have Covid 19. Dr. Gerada repeatedly refers to having coronavirus and doesn't mention Covid 19.
Perhaps she is unaware of the research, or doesn't think it matters when addressing the general public. Personally, I like my doctors to be precise and correct in their pronouncements. I figure it kinda goes with the territory.
I leave it up to you as to what you think of this story of an ex union official.
Friday, 6 March 2020
Noble BBC And Coronavirus
Hands up if you think the BBC has done what it sees as it's core responsibility, in a situation like Covid 19 is presenting and that is, to spread as much panic as humanly possible. I don't think they've missed any opportunity, failed to exaggerate and push the narrative.
It is a fabulous organisation, with guaranteed funding, stuffed only with Left ideological staff and certain of it's righteousness and just how benign it's instructions to the population are.
They say they have to pay their senior management huge salaries, to attract the best talent. My question would be, when do you intend to start recruiting talent?
It is a fabulous organisation, with guaranteed funding, stuffed only with Left ideological staff and certain of it's righteousness and just how benign it's instructions to the population are.
They say they have to pay their senior management huge salaries, to attract the best talent. My question would be, when do you intend to start recruiting talent?
Wednesday, 22 January 2020
Fear And Loathing
Difficult times, with absolutely no reason to be. But when you fail to recognise an enemy, when you are faced with war and you either don't mobilise, or use insufficient forces, what do you suppose happens?
This country (and the US with most other Western style democracies following along) have been faced with an implacable enemy engaging in an ideological war. Marx attempted to start that war, using 'conventional' forces. He came to the conclusion that 'the people' were oppressed. As with most things there was a kernel of truth to this assertion.
But he then got carried away, coming to believe it was a fundamental truth that would cause this trampled mass of people to rise up and violently overthrow their 'masters'. The trampled didn't quite see it like that though. So unreliable (Corbyn would sympathise).
So, after decades of trying and seeing sensible, grown up people turning their backs on nihilism the Marxists went for the long game. Join all the key institutions and stay resolutely against capitalism (common sense, best outcomes, friends, family, country...) and capitalism could be destroyed from within.
Marxism of course, needs proles, uneducated idiots who don't question them, accept their hard lives and do all the real work, so the education system had to be destroyed. How would you say that was doing? Try asking a youngster today a fairly straightforward question about anything detailed (i.e. not TV, social media or celebrity related). They won't have a clue. Capital of Peru? No chance ("What's Paroo?")
The Civil Service? Well, seemed very unhappy to be leaving a leftie dictatorship. The police? That would be the no longer crime focussed police. The courts? I don't need to go on do I?
But Climate Change is their real push. This is the global anti-capitalist play, to get countries to destroy their own economies. They are the girlfriend who chips away and bullies the 'boyfriend' into killing himself.
The climate is changing, it has been getting warmer. You would be pleased surely that the Thames doesn't freeze over any more? Crops grow more readily, we don't die of the cold so regularly. What would you rather have, the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age?
But science tells us that increased concentrations of CO2 causes the temperature to go up and we are churning out loads of CO2. The Greenhouse Gas theory is sound, too much of certain gases and the planet absorbs heat from the sun, but won't let it escape. We're done for.
But we have no idea what the concentration that is too much is. Fundamentally, we don't understand climate. But huge though it is, our output of CO2 etc is insignificant to the planet. It doesn't notice.
You'll notice there is never a debate about Climate Change, just the propaganda from the likes of the BBC. Obviously, when you cannot possibly support your argument, you don't have a debate. Hence for the first time ever in human history, the science is settled. We have a pristine, perfect answer to a scientific conundrum.
Except, we don't. We have a bunch of lies. There are fewer big storms hitting landfall, fewer areas of the planet burned, rain is as it has been for decades, you name it and it isn't what the eco loons claim, with no data (they do present cooked data, or just lies). The Met Office recently claimed that last year was the hottest evah. It wasn't and their own records prove this, but you only heard what they said. Who checks these days? Not dopey kids.
Which brings us on to Greta Thunberg. The poster child. In the Telegraph today, Phillip Johnston has a headline, saying if he had to choose between Greta and Trump, he'd go with Greta. Well, I guess the choice between the President of the United States of America, who is a PR disaster, but has also reduced unemployment, reduced energy prices making US industry more competitive and child puppet of anti-capitalist extremists, I suppose it would be difficult.
This country (and the US with most other Western style democracies following along) have been faced with an implacable enemy engaging in an ideological war. Marx attempted to start that war, using 'conventional' forces. He came to the conclusion that 'the people' were oppressed. As with most things there was a kernel of truth to this assertion.
But he then got carried away, coming to believe it was a fundamental truth that would cause this trampled mass of people to rise up and violently overthrow their 'masters'. The trampled didn't quite see it like that though. So unreliable (Corbyn would sympathise).
So, after decades of trying and seeing sensible, grown up people turning their backs on nihilism the Marxists went for the long game. Join all the key institutions and stay resolutely against capitalism (common sense, best outcomes, friends, family, country...) and capitalism could be destroyed from within.
Marxism of course, needs proles, uneducated idiots who don't question them, accept their hard lives and do all the real work, so the education system had to be destroyed. How would you say that was doing? Try asking a youngster today a fairly straightforward question about anything detailed (i.e. not TV, social media or celebrity related). They won't have a clue. Capital of Peru? No chance ("What's Paroo?")
The Civil Service? Well, seemed very unhappy to be leaving a leftie dictatorship. The police? That would be the no longer crime focussed police. The courts? I don't need to go on do I?
But Climate Change is their real push. This is the global anti-capitalist play, to get countries to destroy their own economies. They are the girlfriend who chips away and bullies the 'boyfriend' into killing himself.
The climate is changing, it has been getting warmer. You would be pleased surely that the Thames doesn't freeze over any more? Crops grow more readily, we don't die of the cold so regularly. What would you rather have, the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age?
But science tells us that increased concentrations of CO2 causes the temperature to go up and we are churning out loads of CO2. The Greenhouse Gas theory is sound, too much of certain gases and the planet absorbs heat from the sun, but won't let it escape. We're done for.
But we have no idea what the concentration that is too much is. Fundamentally, we don't understand climate. But huge though it is, our output of CO2 etc is insignificant to the planet. It doesn't notice.
You'll notice there is never a debate about Climate Change, just the propaganda from the likes of the BBC. Obviously, when you cannot possibly support your argument, you don't have a debate. Hence for the first time ever in human history, the science is settled. We have a pristine, perfect answer to a scientific conundrum.
Except, we don't. We have a bunch of lies. There are fewer big storms hitting landfall, fewer areas of the planet burned, rain is as it has been for decades, you name it and it isn't what the eco loons claim, with no data (they do present cooked data, or just lies). The Met Office recently claimed that last year was the hottest evah. It wasn't and their own records prove this, but you only heard what they said. Who checks these days? Not dopey kids.
Which brings us on to Greta Thunberg. The poster child. In the Telegraph today, Phillip Johnston has a headline, saying if he had to choose between Greta and Trump, he'd go with Greta. Well, I guess the choice between the President of the United States of America, who is a PR disaster, but has also reduced unemployment, reduced energy prices making US industry more competitive and child puppet of anti-capitalist extremists, I suppose it would be difficult.
Tuesday, 29 October 2019
Grenfell
There are a lot of disingenuous hangers-on in the Grenfell story, who are trying to use the incident and the victims and their families to further their own political agenda. It's how the Left work, but doesn't make it any less disgusting.
For me, the underlying issue that makes this a scandal, is that this is Britain. I don't care whether some of the victims were illegal sub-letters, or illegal immigrants, or straightforward Londoners, no-one should be let down by this country in that way.
We should have proper rules, properly enforced to maximise the safety of buildings. Apparently, petty corruption is now a thing here and this is what it leads to. Also, when did we agree to neuter our fire brigades? I don't know if Danielle (Dany!) Cotton was just promoted because she is a female, or if other senior officers are just as stupid and unqualified for rank as her and so she fitted in well.
But her decisions on the day and her comments since leave no doubt, she is well paid for a job she cannot do. It is also clear, that her main concern over the Grenfell tragedy is herself and her image. I found her statement to the inquiry simply unbelievable. She is clear and concerned with details about how she turned out for the incident, getting there, not wrenching control from the officer running the incident (magnanimous), but when it comes to the fire and decision making on actual fire brigade matters, she suffers a loss of memory (that she hopes "will come back someday").
There have been complaints from senior fire officers and the Union that even at this distance from the event, the government haven't told them what to do about the 'stay put' policy. Presumably this is because the fire brigades no longer have any input into fire fighting? Cotton in fact, makes a deal of her concern and recognition of the dangers her officers faced.
But she seems to have no concern for the tower's occupants or the safety of her officers as she sticks rigidly to protocols, regardless of what is happening in front of her.
'Stay put' was evolved as a fire strategy as tower blocks were required to adhere to building regulations that each flat would be a fire secure unit. They were basically fire proofed boxes and generally only the flat where a fire starts and perhaps one other are affected. So those occupants get out, everyone else 'stays put' and the Brigade deal with the fire.
At Grenfell, because alterations had been made (and presumably signed off by the council) these cells were no longer effective containment blocks. There is lots of bleating (driven by activists) about the cladding being responsible and with the speed the fire spread up the outside of the building it is clear it was partly to blame.
But the fire also spread rapidly through the internal structure. Why was this? Serious questions exist over exactly what was done and being done to the building. And I agree that to report on the actions of the fire brigade ahead of investigations into the causes and thus the nature of the fire they were facing, is wrongheaded.
But the whining of 'Dany' Cotton about how she wouldn't change anything if she had her time again, or not knowing the protocol needed changing is self-serving cant. She knows, because even I do, that a tower block should not burn like that, therefore something unusual was happening - get the people out and plan how best to fight a large building fire that is out of control.
I don't mean to suggest this would have saved everyone, because the fire escape planning for the building was also predicated on the 'stay put' policy. Stairwells full of smoke and a single route, make it difficult for fire officers to get in passed those escaping, to help others.
I'm sure that an audit of the actions of the fire brigade in accordance with political correctness would find little to fault, but this fact directly led to the inaction of idiot senior officers and the hopeless procedures in place to actually act as an emergency service.
This is the outcome of Left ideology in action and such an ideology rests on a massive bureaucracy, which I'm sure, as I write this, is busily finding ways no part of the Establishment takes the blame for what happened.
For me, the underlying issue that makes this a scandal, is that this is Britain. I don't care whether some of the victims were illegal sub-letters, or illegal immigrants, or straightforward Londoners, no-one should be let down by this country in that way.
We should have proper rules, properly enforced to maximise the safety of buildings. Apparently, petty corruption is now a thing here and this is what it leads to. Also, when did we agree to neuter our fire brigades? I don't know if Danielle (Dany!) Cotton was just promoted because she is a female, or if other senior officers are just as stupid and unqualified for rank as her and so she fitted in well.
But her decisions on the day and her comments since leave no doubt, she is well paid for a job she cannot do. It is also clear, that her main concern over the Grenfell tragedy is herself and her image. I found her statement to the inquiry simply unbelievable. She is clear and concerned with details about how she turned out for the incident, getting there, not wrenching control from the officer running the incident (magnanimous), but when it comes to the fire and decision making on actual fire brigade matters, she suffers a loss of memory (that she hopes "will come back someday").
There have been complaints from senior fire officers and the Union that even at this distance from the event, the government haven't told them what to do about the 'stay put' policy. Presumably this is because the fire brigades no longer have any input into fire fighting? Cotton in fact, makes a deal of her concern and recognition of the dangers her officers faced.
But she seems to have no concern for the tower's occupants or the safety of her officers as she sticks rigidly to protocols, regardless of what is happening in front of her.
'Stay put' was evolved as a fire strategy as tower blocks were required to adhere to building regulations that each flat would be a fire secure unit. They were basically fire proofed boxes and generally only the flat where a fire starts and perhaps one other are affected. So those occupants get out, everyone else 'stays put' and the Brigade deal with the fire.
At Grenfell, because alterations had been made (and presumably signed off by the council) these cells were no longer effective containment blocks. There is lots of bleating (driven by activists) about the cladding being responsible and with the speed the fire spread up the outside of the building it is clear it was partly to blame.
But the fire also spread rapidly through the internal structure. Why was this? Serious questions exist over exactly what was done and being done to the building. And I agree that to report on the actions of the fire brigade ahead of investigations into the causes and thus the nature of the fire they were facing, is wrongheaded.
But the whining of 'Dany' Cotton about how she wouldn't change anything if she had her time again, or not knowing the protocol needed changing is self-serving cant. She knows, because even I do, that a tower block should not burn like that, therefore something unusual was happening - get the people out and plan how best to fight a large building fire that is out of control.
I don't mean to suggest this would have saved everyone, because the fire escape planning for the building was also predicated on the 'stay put' policy. Stairwells full of smoke and a single route, make it difficult for fire officers to get in passed those escaping, to help others.
I'm sure that an audit of the actions of the fire brigade in accordance with political correctness would find little to fault, but this fact directly led to the inaction of idiot senior officers and the hopeless procedures in place to actually act as an emergency service.
This is the outcome of Left ideology in action and such an ideology rests on a massive bureaucracy, which I'm sure, as I write this, is busily finding ways no part of the Establishment takes the blame for what happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)