Heathrow's lack of Resillience.

 The Big news this morning is that Heathrow Airport, the biggest in the country, will be closed for the day due to a fire at a local substation. The loss of the substation has caused a severe power outage at Heathrow. 

How?

How is the biggest airport in the country not supplied by multiple power sources, so that if they lose one, they can continue on the others? 

The running of Heathrow, after all, is a life-critical resource.

The GPS co-ordinates of the substation have no doubt been noted by bad actors. It will have also been noted that the UK's strategic resources are poor served by utility companies and that there are weaknesses around our defences, in that our airfields (within which I include military airfields) may be served by a single power source, leaving them vulnerable to attack once that resource is taken out. 

Reminds me of when I was given the job of Network Manager when I worked for ICL. 

I'd done all the costings, made sure that there was resilience in the network so the factory could continue working if a wire was cut. Not only building it into the design of the network, but also running duplicate cable lays so that back-up cables were already in place if it was just a cable that was cut. If part of the building was destroyed, then the network was designed so that traffic was automatically rerouted around the hole. 

But when it came to the external connections to the broader internet, we had no control over resilience. I'd written a report identifying this weakness and asked for permission and authority to investigate. I was refused, the managers saying that they had been told by BT that we had two connections. One down to and exchange in Manchester to the West and one running over the Pennines to the East. 

No proof was provided, we just took it on spec from BT that this was the case, with no investigation.

Months later a JCB digging up the pavement outside what would be an ALDI store dug through the fibre optic cables. We instantly lost all our internet connectivity.

It turned out that both our external lines were routed down that road to ICLs development premises at West Gorton, and THEN split into two separate channels. One of which went back along the very same pavement as our two supposedly resilient connections. 

Network connections to the factory were down for days. 

And I'm appalled that Heathrow doesn't have half a dozen connections to the power grid. One for every terminal (of which there are five) and a spare. All of which are managed automatically so that there is no loss of power if one is taken out,

But it seems conversations with utility companies on concepts like resilience and triple-redundant back-ups haven't progressed much past the Eighties...

The Government's Conservative Welfare Policy Won't Work.

It's hard to see the current government as a Labour government, they are more like the historical nasty party, the Tories.

The current nonsense from government is to get the disabled off benefits and into work. 

Great, how do you propose to do that? Just dump people off welfare?

Because I've talked before, several times about the gulf between being on benefits and being in work. It's not so simple, because as soon as you leave the comfort of benefits, the reality of working and having to pay rent, food and energy bills out of minimum wage makes it virtually impossible to make the jump. The cost of living is outstripping the supply of wages.

Even more so for the disabled, who require their employers to make special accommodations for their disabilities. Straight away the disabled have even more of a hill to climb and even more expense. 

If the disabled person can't use buses, how are they supposed to get to work? If they can only use taxis, where does the extra money for that come from? Benefits? Oh, so they've still got to claim in-work benefits to actually work? 

Where is the sense in that?

I've said before that my son requires a very understanding employer. He needs in-work support. But how are employers that can't even fund training courses for able-bodied staff be convinced to pay to support mentally ill or disabled people in work? It just isn't going to happen.

So these people will drop off benefits and end up homeless. 

That's not a good look for a caring Labour government.

The Government is Definitely not Your Friend, Especially if You are Unproductive.

Here's a conspiracy for you: What would be the best way to save expenditure by the government? Well, you could reduce the number of people requiring benefit. But as the current government are finding, that's a difficult job if the people still exist, but just die off in huge numbers thanks to government policy.

Let's have a think: How can you make it so it's NOT the government's policy directly that led to the loss of life on a large scale? 

You could import a virus or plague, but that's been tried and thanks to several generations of South African mice, the globe dodged a massive bullet. It very quickly mutated from killer to common cold.

What if you imported an army from abroad and then created the conditions to make them slaughter (say) half the population? That's not the government's fault, it's the imported army's fault.  But the government get an instantly lower the welfare bill essentially by "losing" half the population. 

You'd instantly lose all the weak people who can't protect themselves that are more likely to be on benefits. Then once you lost enough people so the welfare bill was reduced to a sufficiently acceptable level, then you can step in and eradicate the immigrants, become the saviour of the nation. Then you can reform that nation with a lower welfare bill. What a hero the government would  be. 

How would you create the condition for civil war? Well, maybe you continually support the immigrants instead of the current population, but then at some point you pull the rug from under the immigrants, enough to make them angry enough to revolt.

Or just continue the two-tier Policies in play at the moment. Make the indigenous white population feel second-class in their own country. Then they become angry enough to kick off all by themselves. Double-bonus, these indigenous white people can be branded far-right and done away with without much in the way of protest.

Right now, I get the feeling that the above is the policy in play at the moment. The government sees no way out other than the mass slaughter of citizens. They are not our friend. Neither is anyone supporting the importation of immigrants to the level we have now. 

I predict Shark Eyes Starmer the Sociopath has this as a plan somewhere in his desk. I wouldn't say it's his last gasp plan, but it will be somewhere in that uncompromisingly uncaring brain of his. 

Let the rabble fight it out, lose a few hundred thousand bodies, then wade in with the Army to quell it all. Then you have a reason to deport even the legal immigrants, lest they kick off all over again. 

I said years ago that there was some reason illegals were being imported in droves. Now I'm forming an opinion on the reality of why. It's not good. Not for the immigrants who get used as scapegoats and it's not good for the population at large.

The Double Whammy of Net Zero.

I've often heard people complaini9ng (quite rightly) about the affect that the government's net zero policy has on energy prices. 

The green tariffs on energy supposedly to help the poor renewable energy companies to install the wind and solar farms bump up the price of  energy artificially.

But the cost of that energy puts large-scale industrial production at risk. Over the decades we've seen steel production dwindle to nothing, chemical production is going the same way as is oil refining, large-scale manufacturing is a thing of the past. 

Those industrial firms have left the UK I assume never to return as they are replaced by production plants in India and China.

But with the loss of that large-scale industry s the loss of the large scale tax revenue that such companies would put into the exchequer.

And who is expected to replace the shortfall? Yep, you and me.

That's the double-whammy: not only are we paying higher fuel duty (taxes) and green energy tariffs (taxes) we are also having to subsidise the loss of taxes caused by the loss of industrial production.

It's an unsustainable model. 

We need to stop making the PAYE taxpayer the milk-cow of the exchequer. There's only so much you can screw of of the lower paid before it becomes unprofitable to work. Many of them have gone on long-term sickness and receive benefits. The ones outside the system become homeless.

The ones at the bottom are on zero-hours contracts, or minimum wage. Now management is coming into the minimum wage bracket. 

But minimum wage should, to be brutally honest tax-free. It's not a living wage, it's a surviving wage, it's an existence wage. There is no disposable income left after all the bills have gone out.

We are an economy in decline. With the loss of large-scale industry, the loss of substantive manufacturing capability, we are doomed. In order to climb out of this, we have to create and create massively. You can't retail ourselves out of this. We need to make things the world wants and produce them here in the UK. We should not be competing with Chinese low-quality crap, we should be making stuff that is quality that people will pay a premium for.

The alley that car makers are going down, like buying in Chinese technology or worse still, slapping a badge on a Chinese model is not the way to go. Lets start looking at adding value. Better interiors, better technology, done better and to a higher standard. Look at new technologies: flying cars, drone taxis, the things that the new cities will need. deregulate: legalise e-scooters and e-bikes, register them so they are properly regulated.  Deregulate the airspace below 500ft. Allow drone delivery, drone taxis, create low-level air corridors to avoid conflicts. Do it now to encourage the investment it technology and testing.

The government have made much of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.). But that's not a saviour. That doesn't produce. A.I. can maybe advise on reductions in the cost of government, but that's it. And where do those unemployed people released from the civil service go? Where do they get jobs?

The importation of immigrants isn't helping one bit. They are mostly in minimum wage or dark economy (illegal) jobs. They do not contribute much if anything to the economy.

This is a huge problem that the zealous imposition of net zero policy imposes on the country. It imposes the decline of the country. 

Faster than you may have previously thought possible

Lurpak Boss Complaining About "Conspiracy Theorists Targeting His Product"

In this article the boss of Lurpak Bas Padberg complains his product has been targeted by Conspiracy Theorists.

The article then goes on to say that Lurpak does indeed make it's product from milk from cows that are being fed with Boaver, the feed additive that is given to cows to reduce methane production in the rumen. 

So far, then, not a conspiracy, you've just confirmed you use the contentious Boaver product. A product that is so toxic to humans, it requires special handling with PPE.

Bas goes further and says that Boaver is being added to dairy feed in several markets as if that's a defence against the conspiracy theorists. I say it's just reinforcing the fact it's not a conspiracy, it's the truth.

Bas goes on to say that Boaver has been approved by the UK FSA. The FSA say that milk from cows fed with Boaver is safe. Yeah we were told feeding sheep to cows was safe until BSE came along.

Hmm,  the old "safe and effective" line, where have I heard that before. 

Let's just say I would rather not be part of some trial of a chemical that is toxic, needs special handling is fed to cows and does appear in their milk, with no testing of long-term exposure.

What the article doesn't give is any balance to the debate. It just interviews a whinging CEO saying that people don't want to take his product that has this new additive in it. 

For instance it doesn't mention the side-effects of contact with Boaver if not handled correctly. It doesn't mention that the lab tests of cows shows that Boaver does in fact appear in the milk. It doesn't say there are no long-term tests to continued exposure to Boaver in milk. 

And that's what the so-called conspiracy theorists are complaining about. It's the fact that yet another industry is adding chemical products to it's own foodstuffs and claiming them to be safe with no long term exposure testing. Also why no labelling of the product so that should people choose not to consume Boaver in small amounts they can't easily find a Boaver-free product. 

A simple "Contains CO2 Reducing Additive" would be enough, so we can avoid such products if we choose to.  It would also allow those idiots that want to promote the reduction of CO2 by feeding cows a product toxic to humans to signal their virtue by buying the tainted crap.

And it's only going to get worse, as Climate Cult Captured governments eventually demand that ALL cows be fed with Boaver. Then the amounts of Boaver in milk can only increase.

Bas Padberg, it's not a conspiracy. You've admitted you are using milk tainted by Boaver. You refuse to accept that people might not want that additive in their food, it's yet again another CEO saying tough, you have no choice.

Well, Bas Buddy, we do have a choice, for now. And that's to not buy your tainted product. It's harder because you don't appear to want clear labelling, but we'll scrutinise the supplier codes on our product and buy those we know do not contain Boaver.

And when Boaver goes mainstream, we will have to bite the bullet and buy organic milk products. For as long as that's financially viable, that is. Because you can bet that rich people like CEOs of large companies won't be eating the tainted crap they produce for the masses, no they'll be eating healthy organic food.  And it will become expensive to avoid long term exposure to this feed additive that not one consumer asked for. 

And that's why your product is not being bought: we don't like being lectured to, we don't like you putting stuff in our food without us having an alternative, we don't like that you're doing it sneakily without proper labelling (why actually would you do that?), we don't like being asked first.

So Bas, I hope your product is consigned to history, or at the very least suffers a Bud Lite style backlash. If you put shit in your product the customer didn't ask for and doesn't want, expect some pushback. You sanctimonious CEOs need to be taught that the consumer is king , not a conspiracy theorist.