UK politics - continuing into 2021

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I understand it the project would be a fraction of the cost of protecting the Channel, North Sea, Baltic Sea etc piece by piece.

The Channel barrier would go somewhere from Normandy to Dorset or Devon or whatever. Then link the Scottish Islands and on to Norway. There is only one section in the North Sea that would require new technologies.

It would be eye wateringly expensive, but it would still be cheaper than doing it town by town. I think rather the point of the proposal is to open peoples eyes to the potential costs of the required sea defences.

EDIT - Wow, 23 min xpost. I got distracted. Yeah, the Norwegian trench would be the problem.

Yeah
One of the issues or consequences is how to deal with the warm gulf stream:

What happens with the warming effect of the gulf stream to NW Europe when part of the warm gulf stream no longer goes through the North Sea ?
It would make winters colder and likely summers warmer. The question is how much.
If that would be undesirable that big dike should start along the Belgium-French border (or more South), leave the Dover Strait open, and goes following the Belgium-Dutch-German-Danish coast to the North cape of Denmark and from there as separate decision to Sweden avoiding the deep part Norwegian trench but protecting an enormous Baltic coastline.
This would also keep many fishermen happier and the islander of the UK :crazyeye:
 
Yeah
One of the issues or consequences is how to deal with the warm gulf stream:

What happens with the warming effect of the gulf stream to NW Europe when part of the warm gulf stream no longer goes through the North Sea ?
It would make winters colder and likely summers warmer. The question is how much.
If that would be undesirable that big dike should start along the Belgium-French border (or more South), leave the Dover Strait open, and goes following the Belgium-Dutch-German-Danish coast to the North cape of Denmark and from there as separate decision to Sweden avoiding the deep part Norwegian trench but protecting an enormous Baltic coastline.
This would also keep many fishermen happier and the islander of the UK :crazyeye:

It also depends if the barrier is opened tidally or permanently closed, and that really depends on how far sea levels ride. If we are protecting from a meter or two we can have the gates open most of the time. Allow the sealife to move. Potential for tidal power to be built in. It would also mean we had the basic infrastructure in place if the water rose more.

An impermeable dyke would be an ecological disaster. Fresh water North and Baltic seas would kill most of the sealife. No chance for that warm Caribbean water to mitigate those freakily cold Scandinavian rivers. Whales and Dolphins unable to migrate.
 
Tory candidate for the Senedd gets himself in trouble.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ising-llyn-tryweryn/ar-BB1eGfg2?ocid=msedgdhp

He posted a picture off Llyn Celyn with the caption, "I believe I am the luckiest @WelshConserv candidate standing in Wales #LlynCelyn #LoveWales #CaruCymru".
Llyn Celyn is a reservoir created over the objections of local residents who lost their homes to supply water to England.

He then tried to defend his tweet by saying, “With respect, my picture has nothing to do with politics. The Cardiff Bay Clique has left behind Dwyfor Meirionnydd.
“Its natural beauty however is outstanding and thankfully untouched by politicians. They’d undoubtedly ruin it.”

Beautiful it may be but theres nothing natural about it and it was created by politicians.
 
Last edited:
... big dike should start along the Belgium-French border (or more South), leave the Dover Strait open, and goes following the Belgium-Dutch-German-Danish coast to the North cape of Denmark and from there as separate decision to Sweden avoiding the deep part Norwegian trench but protecting an enormous Baltic coastline.

That seems much more sensible. I don't believe the engineering industry knows how to build a dike across the Norwegian trench.
 
To add to the list of weird things the tories think is wrong with the world:

We should make life worse for refugees

A series of leaks last year suggesting the UK government was considering a number of offshore policies akin to those used in Australia.
These included sending asylum seekers to Ascension Island, more than 4,000 miles from the UK, as well as Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, islands off the coast of Scotland and turning disused ferries out at sea into processing centres.
Clearly the greatest threat to this country at the moment:
 
Of course, people like Sajid Javid and even Pritti Patel wouldn't be here if the Tories of 70 years ago were this extreme.
 
It was Pritti Patel's idea to oppress the Sarah Everard’s murder protestors:

On Friday [last week] a message was sent to all police chiefs making Patel’s position clear. She wanted them to stop people gathering at vigils. She also promised she would personally urge people not to gather – but she never did.
Though the police are operationally independent, the home secretary had made her views clear, which made her criticisms of the way officers broke up the Clapham event particularly galling.

Entitled “Vigils following the murder investigation of Sarah Everard”, it begins “Dear Chief constables” and advises “early engagement” with the organisers of the planned vigils.
The document from Operation Talla, the codename for the national police coordination effort for the Covid pandemic, part of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, goes on: “We understand the strength of feeling. Covid regulations do not permit large gatherings. This issue has been discussed with the policing minister this morning who is supportive of our position. In support of this, the home secretary will also be issuing a message to the public later today that will discourage people gathering in person.”
The document states what police were expected to do, having declared that this position had government support. It says: “People should conduct their vigil using alternative means and in accordance with the law. Police must take a consistent approach and cannot waive the regulations for any one type of gathering.”
And it really is a problem largely of their making:

Eight years ago the UK government signed the Istanbul Convention for the prevention of violence against women and girls and has failed every day since to implement it. Instead we see a rising epidemic of domestic and sexual violence, amplified by the pandemic and still basically ignored by the government.
Life-saving support services have been slashed for a decade straight, with survivors waiting months and years for support and many Rape Crisis Centres forced to close their waiting lists or shut completely. Meanwhile conviction rates for rape have fallen so far through the floor, you’re less likely to get a conviction today than you were in the 1970s. We are routinely denied justice through the courts, support through the NHS, and respect from the police.

Just last summer the Metropolitan Police gave us another unspeakable example of this with the disappearance of two sisters, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman. Like Gaia’s, the police didn’t take their disappearance seriously, so their family had to lead the search. Unlike Gaia and Sarah, these were Black women, so their disappearance did not capture national headlines – at least not until after their relatives had found them murdered and it emerged that Metropolitan Police officers who attended the scene had taken “sickening” selfies with their bodies.

UK-wide there have never been more reports or fewer convictions by comparison. This is a national crisis. But with a record like theirs, when the Metropolitan Police violently attacked those gathered to mourn a woman kidnapped and killed by one of their own, they disgusted the world and made Clapham Common a turning point. Shellshocked as we are after a year of COVID-19, the injustice of that moment burned too brightly to be ignored.

Cressida Dick in 2015 when as commissioner went on to abandon the “believe first” guidelines that had been introduced after the Met’s abject failure to investigate allegations against Jimmy Saville. She said: “If it’s a long time ago or it’s very trivial or I’m not likely to get a criminal justice outcome, I’m not going to spend a lot of resources on it … and what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.”​
 
@Samson

The first report I find interesting.

Pritti Patel seems to be making the old mistake of getting
involved in the details when all that is much better delegated.

The second report is the usual mismatch of complaints.

If the alleged killer of Sarah Everard is convicted
and appropriately punished, then justice is not denied.
 
If the alleged killer of Sarah Everard is convicted
and appropriately punished, then justice is not denied.
Well, we have not yet had the details but if we find out that another crime that could have got him off the streets was brushed under the carpet because he was a policeman then that is not really the justice system working as designed.
 
Well, we have not yet had the details but if we find out that another crime that could have got him off the streets was brushed under the carpet because he was a policeman then that is not really the justice system working as designed.

Even if the accused had committed another crime, been detected, arrested, charged
and sentenced; one presumes he would eventually have been released; so that would
not necessarily have prevented him from committing murder if that is their nature.
 
Anyone here remember the Scottish Indy thread of 2014? I recall some Scots here going on about how sleazy Westminster was and how holier-than-thou Holyrood was.
Well I never believed it then and we can all see just how rotten the political scene in the one party state up North has become. The one track minded Nationalists have been in power for far too long and it shows.

Not just all the Salmond court cases sleaze but the response from Sturgeon as she tries to cover her tracks. Starmer reckons today “Nicola Sturgeon should resign if a Holyrood inquiry finds that she breached the ministerial code, whether or not it concludes she did so deliberately”. Quite right too. But I doubt if she will. She is much more likely to announce she is to be President for life than admit she misled parliament.

So if wee Eck does, indeed, end up killing off wee Jimmy Krankie, will that bring an end to Scottish Independence for now? There is little doubt there is no one up there with the calibre of those two and it is not clear who would take over. The only one that might have done so was Derek Mackay, but he is no more as he was caught sending inappropriate texts to a schoolboy last year.
A fish rots from its head they say.
Even worse when it is two fishes. :mischief:
 
If Scotland is so rotten, then surely it should be allowed to be independent :yup:

Not that surprised that it is a "one party state", given it isn't yet its own country. If it does become independent, I really doubt you will see the tories or even labour be relevant there in the future; some other party will play the role of #2 and occasional #1.
 
You should post some pictures of Edinburgh, the granite city.

Proud as I am of Norwich, it is not in the same league as that beautiful place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom