The third day of Cheltenham approaches and my thoughts on the day as follows: . Mares Novices Hurdle: BAMBINO FEVER
Jack Richards Novices Handicap Chase: SIXMILEBRIDGE
Mares Hurdle - WODHOOH
Stayers Hurdle - MA SHANTOU (win), IMPOSE TOI (each way)
Ryanair Chase: IMPAIRE ET PASSE
What became of proper horse's names, such as Dobbin?
If I ever own a race horse then I would call it ‘My face’.
You'd be embarrassed when you had to employ jockeys.
I have no sense of shame or embarrassment.
But imagine during Royal Ascot thousand of attendees who had backed my horse all saying ‘Come on my face’.
Approaching the apprentice to tell them "I want you to vigorously ride my face every morning. And if you do it really well in front of a cheering crowd at 3:30 at Lingfield" may be a step too far even for you.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Everyone in the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if individually a country is 1%, 10% or 0.1% of the total, everyone has to do their part. China is building renewables at a prodigious rate now, no reason why Britain (or even Ireland) can't do the same.
And, if done right, it should make us wealthier, not poorer. We wouldn't be immiserated by yet another war in the Middle East, for starters.
Thank Allah I don’t work for the Lloyds Banking Group.
Some customers using Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and Halifax apps have been able to see other users' transactions on their accounts.
Lloyds Banking Group customers reported being able to view charges and payments from other sources on Thursday morning.
A Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson apologised for the issue and said the incident had been quickly resolved.
An investigation is under way.
One woman told BBC Scotland News she was able to see the accounts of six different users on the Bank of Scotland app, including some National Insurance numbers, over a 20-minute period.
Those included transactions from a pub in Newcastle, 154 miles from her home in Kirkcaldy, Fife, fees for using one card abroad and wage payments from a company based in England.
The 55-year-old also reported being able to view benefits payments from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), which use the National Insurance numbers of recipients as a payment reference.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.
Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
I'd tentatively support that. There may indeed be a use case for CCS in areas where it is very difficult to avoid CO2 release such as the ones you mention, but there's an awful lot of lower hanging fruit to be picked first. The first priority has got to be electrification of everything that can be electrified and a corresponding massive expansion of low emission electricity generation, transport and storage.
The big gaps are transport (transmission) and storage.
Indeed, though I gather the problems with expansion of transmission are largely political in nature in that people don't want pylons, etc, whereas storage is a more technical issue in that it's just really hard to do.
Battery storage is now cheaper than building hydro. Even if the sites for enough hydro were available - they aren’t. And it’s getting cheaper all the time
The desparate NIMBY pushback is something to behold, though. Particularly when it comes from Green local politicians. Apparently the fact that 30MWh and below doesn’t need the full planning enquiry that a power station gets is Evil.
That’s 10 ISO containers, basically.
Are you sure - unless I’ve got my maths very wrong I suspect it would be 3 40ft containers max
The vape shop fire in Glasgow is going to be a nightmare for this. People are itching to find a way to ban EVs (bikes and cars), batteries etc.
There’s dozens of vape shops on Union St and that end of Sauchiehall St. They can’t all be making money selling vapes. Scottish version of the Turkish barber, or Walter White’s car wash?
Dozens? Google map shows 3 on Union St and Sauchiehall St is nowhere near there (and is any case not throbbing with vape shops).
I see vape shops are the new meme for the only asking questions, great replacement theory lads.
Who, Channel 4?
Ok, vape shops are the new meme for the only asking questions, great replacement theory lads AND Channel 4, neither of whom expressed anything resembling a public opinion on them previous to Sunday.
Thank Allah I don’t work for the Lloyds Banking Group.
Some customers using Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and Halifax apps have been able to see other users' transactions on their accounts.
Lloyds Banking Group customers reported being able to view charges and payments from other sources on Thursday morning.
A Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson apologised for the issue and said the incident had been quickly resolved.
An investigation is under way.
One woman told BBC Scotland News she was able to see the accounts of six different users on the Bank of Scotland app, including some National Insurance numbers, over a 20-minute period.
Those included transactions from a pub in Newcastle, 154 miles from her home in Kirkcaldy, Fife, fees for using one card abroad and wage payments from a company based in England.
The 55-year-old also reported being able to view benefits payments from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), which use the National Insurance numbers of recipients as a payment reference.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.
Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
I'd tentatively support that. There may indeed be a use case for CCS in areas where it is very difficult to avoid CO2 release such as the ones you mention, but there's an awful lot of lower hanging fruit to be picked first. The first priority has got to be electrification of everything that can be electrified and a corresponding massive expansion of low emission electricity generation, transport and storage.
The big gaps are transport (transmission) and storage.
Indeed, though I gather the problems with expansion of transmission are largely political in nature in that people don't want pylons, etc, whereas storage is a more technical issue in that it's just really hard to do.
Battery storage is now cheaper than building hydro. Even if the sites for enough hydro were available - they aren’t. And it’s getting cheaper all the time
The desparate NIMBY pushback is something to behold, though. Particularly when it comes from Green local politicians. Apparently the fact that 30MWh and below doesn’t need the full planning enquiry that a power station gets is Evil.
That’s 10 ISO containers, basically.
Are you sure - unless I’ve got my maths very wrong I suspect it would be 3 40ft containers max
The vape shop fire in Glasgow is going to be a nightmare for this. People are itching to find a way to ban EVs (bikes and cars), batteries etc.
There’s dozens of vape shops on Union St and that end of Sauchiehall St. They can’t all be making money selling vapes. Scottish version of the Turkish barber, or Walter White’s car wash?
lol its 2026 there are vape shops on every high street in the country
Is Sir Keir still clinging on, and if so why? Yesterday Sky News uncovered a killer fact about what he knew about Mandy and when.
He will because there is nobody else
However, he apparently faces up to 100,000 more document releases as it just keeps on coming
His fate is in the hands of his mps, but if they are looking at an existential threat after May then they may well act, unless of course it is all too much for him and he resigns
VADM Lacore had the reputation and respect from her sailors that most Admirals can only dream of but I don't see why Hegseth would give the slightest shit if she runs for Congress in the South Carolina 1st District where she is highly unlikely to win.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
Edit: And FWIW, I'd also condemn Norway for their hypocrisy, were this a Norwegian site.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.
The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
I was too. But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
I acknowledge that. We should build all the onshore wind we can, and any offshore projects with favourable cost/benefit. But offshore floating wind just doesn't begin to compete with any alternative energy source, unfortunately.
Or we could just scrap the lot, save the Net Zero subsidies and reduce energy prices. That way we might have an industrial base still.
You are Mojtaba Khamenei and I claim my £5.
No Im just someone who runs factories who is pissed off at why my government wants to cripple our competitiveness by pointless virtue signalling.
I have a factory in Aberdeen mostly dependent on the oil industry. Any good reason these people should have their livelihoods put at risk just because some ideologue in North London wants to please activists ?
I agree on North Sea oil. But the idea our electricity generation should come from gas or coal in the future, or our transport rely on oil, looks even more stupid this week than it has done previously.
Thats just totally disconnected from the economy. The economy pays bills, makes people richer makes a better society. Low cost energy is what we need and nothing our governments have done for the last 30 years have helped. Net Zero and other plans do nothing for the country. Our approach has simply been to tax the ass off energy and push out subsidies to pet projects. Despite our claims we have done very little to reduce our carbon footprint. Clsoing down our manufacturing sector simply shifts he pollution overseas it doesnt stop it.
We need mixed sources of energy generation and at the lowest cost possible to stay internationally competitive and cut the cost of living. I remain intrigued how rhe Gen Zers are going to face up to power for data centres which will need more energy that Manufacturing ever did.
But some people, like Eabhal, want less consumption rather than cheap abundant energy.
You making stuff up about me again?
I think one of the most exciting things about renewables is we are going to have so much excess (free) electricity on windy, sunny days that a whole economy will build up around consuming as much as that as possible.
Something like 40% of Scottish wind generation was lost last year. If the accursed Miliband had faced down the SE of England we'd have nodal pricing that would have enabled such an economy.
But there's nothing wrong with reducing consumption either, particularly when it's so expensive. There is another name for that: productivity growth. It's why my little 1 litre turbo can zip me up the A9 at a reasonable cost.
You said in the prior thread we need to consume less.
Thank Allah I don’t work for the Lloyds Banking Group.
Some customers using Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and Halifax apps have been able to see other users' transactions on their accounts.
Lloyds Banking Group customers reported being able to view charges and payments from other sources on Thursday morning.
A Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson apologised for the issue and said the incident had been quickly resolved.
An investigation is under way.
One woman told BBC Scotland News she was able to see the accounts of six different users on the Bank of Scotland app, including some National Insurance numbers, over a 20-minute period.
Those included transactions from a pub in Newcastle, 154 miles from her home in Kirkcaldy, Fife, fees for using one card abroad and wage payments from a company based in England.
The 55-year-old also reported being able to view benefits payments from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), which use the National Insurance numbers of recipients as a payment reference.
Having worked in the sector for many years and seen many a failed overnight run or log in issues, this is a VERY VERY rare occurence and somewhat inexplicable.
To lose or drop a complete file is one thing, to transpose payments between secure accounts on that file is bizarre!
I must declare it's been 15 years since I was in FinServ but having intimate knowlege of the back end systems like Fiserv, this is deeply concerning and not immediately explainable.
How they back these errors out , correct and investigate fully GOD KNOWS!
My only logical explanation is that if the payments are all Government / Tax / Pension body related - the error may lie with them , not with the Bank that has received the payments in good faith?
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't transitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
On topic, unfortunately yes. It's a bummer. Putin starts an old man vanity war of choice and the resulting economic pain causes a stupid and dangerous individual to be elected US president. He then starts an old man vanity war of choice and the resulting economic pain benefits a raft of populist unsavouries seeking power across Europe inc here. This, rather than our so far failed attempts, along with others, to regain pre-08 levels of growth without breaking the public finances is what can be described accurately as a 'doomloop'.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
Edit: And FWIW, I'd also condemn Norway for their hypocrisy, were this a Norwegian site.
Norway has been a world leader in converting to EV cars, so I don't see why they should come in for condemnation in particular. They're not standing in the way of a transition away from fossil fuels.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
But do we have 'much longer'? Our world's temperature is rising and while I doubt we are in the Last Chance Saloon, it would appear we're getting close to it.
We are only 1% of omissions, whilst the US, Russia and others have no intention of complying with the Climate acts
If everyone goes, "Oh, we're only a small portion of omissions," what happens? We're all familiar with the tragedy of the commons. Climate change is a huge problem. We need to work with others, and that means doing our bit.
VADM Lacore had the reputation and respect from her sailors that most Admirals can only dream of but I don't see why Hegseth would give the slightest shit if she runs for Congress in the South Carolina 1st District where she is highly unlikely to win.
The Democrats flipped it in 2018, so it's not impossible.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
See my edit; it's also wrong for Norway and they are guilty of hypocrisy.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.
Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
I'd tentatively support that. There may indeed be a use case for CCS in areas where it is very difficult to avoid CO2 release such as the ones you mention, but there's an awful lot of lower hanging fruit to be picked first. The first priority has got to be electrification of everything that can be electrified and a corresponding massive expansion of low emission electricity generation, transport and storage.
The big gaps are transport (transmission) and storage.
Indeed, though I gather the problems with expansion of transmission are largely political in nature in that people don't want pylons, etc, whereas storage is a more technical issue in that it's just really hard to do.
Battery storage is now cheaper than building hydro. Even if the sites for enough hydro were available - they aren’t. And it’s getting cheaper all the time
The desparate NIMBY pushback is something to behold, though. Particularly when it comes from Green local politicians. Apparently the fact that 30MWh and below doesn’t need the full planning enquiry that a power station gets is Evil.
That’s 10 ISO containers, basically.
Are you sure - unless I’ve got my maths very wrong I suspect it would be 3 40ft containers max
The vape shop fire in Glasgow is going to be a nightmare for this. People are itching to find a way to ban EVs (bikes and cars), batteries etc.
There’s dozens of vape shops on Union St and that end of Sauchiehall St. They can’t all be making money selling vapes. Scottish version of the Turkish barber, or Walter White’s car wash?
lol its 2026 there are vape shops on every high street in the country
My high street has no vape shops... but it does have three sourdough bakeries. #itsgrimupnorthlondon
Thank Allah I don’t work for the Lloyds Banking Group.
Some customers using Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and Halifax apps have been able to see other users' transactions on their accounts.
Lloyds Banking Group customers reported being able to view charges and payments from other sources on Thursday morning.
A Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson apologised for the issue and said the incident had been quickly resolved.
An investigation is under way.
One woman told BBC Scotland News she was able to see the accounts of six different users on the Bank of Scotland app, including some National Insurance numbers, over a 20-minute period.
Those included transactions from a pub in Newcastle, 154 miles from her home in Kirkcaldy, Fife, fees for using one card abroad and wage payments from a company based in England.
The 55-year-old also reported being able to view benefits payments from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), which use the National Insurance numbers of recipients as a payment reference.
Having worked in the sector for many years and seen many a failed overnight run or log in issues, this is a VERY VERY rare occurence and somewhat inexplicable.
To lose or drop a complete file is one thing, to transpose payments between secure accounts on that file is bizarre!
I must declare it's been 15 years since I was in FinServ but having intimate knowlege of the back end systems like Fiserv, this is deeply concerning and not immediately explainable.
How they back these errors out , correct and investigate fully GOD KNOWS!
My only logical explanation is that if the payments are all Government / Tax / Pension body related - the error may lie with them , not with the Bank that has received the payments in good faith?
It doesn't sound to me like an issue with the payments, but with the app pulling data from different people's accounts.
That's an error that shouldn't really be possible either, but could be an issue with someone mangling a SQL join for reasons best known to themselves.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
Edit: And FWIW, I'd also condemn Norway for their hypocrisy, were this a Norwegian site.
Norway has been a world leader in converting to EV cars, so I don't see why they should come in for condemnation in particular. They're not standing in the way of a transition away from fossil fuels.
Providing a supply of fossil fuels obviously makes it harder for the world to transition away from them. It's like drugs.
Thank Allah I don’t work for the Lloyds Banking Group.
Some customers using Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and Halifax apps have been able to see other users' transactions on their accounts.
Lloyds Banking Group customers reported being able to view charges and payments from other sources on Thursday morning.
A Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson apologised for the issue and said the incident had been quickly resolved.
An investigation is under way.
One woman told BBC Scotland News she was able to see the accounts of six different users on the Bank of Scotland app, including some National Insurance numbers, over a 20-minute period.
Those included transactions from a pub in Newcastle, 154 miles from her home in Kirkcaldy, Fife, fees for using one card abroad and wage payments from a company based in England.
The 55-year-old also reported being able to view benefits payments from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), which use the National Insurance numbers of recipients as a payment reference.
Journalists are so cute. Why would it matter if it's 154 miles from her house or not? Do they think bank accounts are still held at branches like it's 1950?
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
See my edit; it's also wrong for Norway and they are guilty of hypocrisy.
Norway's people are far wealthier than we will ever be, and I am not aware of public demands for them to close their exploration of the North sea with new fields being discovered and developed
Thank Allah I don’t work for the Lloyds Banking Group.
Some customers using Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and Halifax apps have been able to see other users' transactions on their accounts.
Lloyds Banking Group customers reported being able to view charges and payments from other sources on Thursday morning.
A Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson apologised for the issue and said the incident had been quickly resolved.
An investigation is under way.
One woman told BBC Scotland News she was able to see the accounts of six different users on the Bank of Scotland app, including some National Insurance numbers, over a 20-minute period.
Those included transactions from a pub in Newcastle, 154 miles from her home in Kirkcaldy, Fife, fees for using one card abroad and wage payments from a company based in England.
The 55-year-old also reported being able to view benefits payments from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), which use the National Insurance numbers of recipients as a payment reference.
Having worked in the sector for many years and seen many a failed overnight run or log in issues, this is a VERY VERY rare occurence and somewhat inexplicable.
To lose or drop a complete file is one thing, to transpose payments between secure accounts on that file is bizarre!
I must declare it's been 15 years since I was in FinServ but having intimate knowlege of the back end systems like Fiserv, this is deeply concerning and not immediately explainable.
How they back these errors out , correct and investigate fully GOD KNOWS!
My only logical explanation is that if the payments are all Government / Tax / Pension body related - the error may lie with them , not with the Bank that has received the payments in good faith?
It doesn't sound to me like an issue with the payments, but with the app pulling data from different people's accounts.
That's an error that shouldn't really be possible either, but could be an issue with someone mangling a SQL join for reasons best known to themselves.
More likely to be some kind of caching error in an intermediate system between the backend SQL database (probably running on some IBM mainframe system or similar high availability / reliability setup) and the web frontend? Shouldn’t happen of course, but it doesn’t mean the backend data has been corrupted.
(If they have screwed up actual transaction data then that’s a lot more serious, as you rightly point out.)
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
Edit: And FWIW, I'd also condemn Norway for their hypocrisy, were this a Norwegian site.
I bet they're having more interesting discussions on politiskveddemal.co.no. Probably lots of discussion of the Danish and Faroese elections.
VADM Lacore had the reputation and respect from her sailors that most Admirals can only dream of but I don't see why Hegseth would give the slightest shit if she runs for Congress in the South Carolina 1st District where she is highly unlikely to win.
That's true, though it won't help the regime PR, and there will be others.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
But do we have 'much longer'? Our world's temperature is rising and while I doubt we are in the Last Chance Saloon, it would appear we're getting close to it.
We are only 1% of omissions, whilst the US, Russia and others have no intention of complying with the Climate acts
If everyone goes, "Oh, we're only a small portion of omissions," what happens? We're all familiar with the tragedy of the commons. Climate change is a huge problem. We need to work with others, and that means doing our bit.
I am not saying we do not do our bit, and indeed the conservatives did a lot in reducing emissions as was reported earlier, but we still need oil and gas for decades and just ending the income stream is economic vandalism
VADM Lacore had the reputation and respect from her sailors that most Admirals can only dream of but I don't see why Hegseth would give the slightest shit if she runs for Congress in the South Carolina 1st District where she is highly unlikely to win.
Winds me up how people conflate production and consumption, on both sides of the debate. Advocating for utilisation of the North Sea (where economic to do so) while also rapidly reducing our exposure to O&G is a perfectly consistent and rational position. And people opposing either are equally ideologically stupid.
If you also happen to be concerned about climate change (which should be all of us aged under 50, and some generous older people too), the hope is renewable technology will also kill off demand for fossil fuels. It's already happened - solar and battery is cheaper and the only hurdle is a relatively small investment and getting the incentives in the right place.
Draft 15 of the trans article has been up backstage since 4am 10Mar2026. Of the people currently cleared to see it (rcs1000, DavidL, fitalass, Cyclefree, TSE, Nigelb, kyf_100, turbotubbs) none have suggested further changes and I am in my weekday digs so are limited in what I can do anyway. So Draft 15 is going to be the prepublish version released to the prereaders.
If anybody wants to preread the article before it is released to the mods please let me know by liking this comment before 9pm 12Mar2026 and I'll add you to the backstage.
I'm not looking for an argument and kyf_100 and Cyclefree have added extensive well-argued arguments in both directions as discussants, so change/comment requests in either direction will probably be ignored. Given the very tight word count, additions will additionally be ignored. But if you spot errors, misnumbered sources, typos, bad punctuation, etc, please tell me and I'll change it/collapse screaming/politely note your point in the article.
I have had interest from Nigelb, kyf_100 (who can already see it) and I think @Andy_JS and @Kinabalu want to be pre-readers (can you confirm this please?)
My appeal is for everyone in this debate is to have compassion for @kyf_100 who has real life experience of love and suffered loss and who provides an insight from those directly affected that requires compassion
Thank you. That’s very kind of you indeed to say so.
I would, however, like to note that while I have personal experience of the subject, I’ve written a near-5000-word response (as has Cyclefree) to Viewcode’s post that stands entirely on its own and doesn’t reference “lived experience” at all. Regrettably, arguments aren’t won by tugging at heartstrings. Certainly not in the corridors of power, where practical concerns are all that matter.
So the practical effects of FWS are what I’ve focused on in my response. If people want to rile me up by telling me to “educate” myself after ten years of lived experience and a near-dissertation-length reply for the forthcoming thread header, it will be hard not to give them both barrels. If, on the other hand, people want to debate the facts and arguments as written, I’m happy to discuss the topic calmly.
What my response to Viewcode (having studiously avoided any personal anecdote) avoids is the daily, low-level stress of simply existing while trans, which has only increased since FWS. On better days I sometimes joke, “I’m glad she didn’t live to see all this, because it would have killed her.”
There are analogies (for example, belonging to an ethnic minority) and I don’t want to dismiss those experiences. But I don’t believe anyone on this forum has lived something quite comparable to the stress a trans woman lives under. The constant uncertainty. Not knowing whether the next time you step outside as yourself you’ll be shouted at, harassed, attacked, or worse. Having to hold your pee because using the women’s bathroom might get you filmed and confronted, while using the men’s risks assault. Being unable to get ordinary work because employers fear complaints from people who think your mere existence is offensive or threatening.
That trans people know all this... that they face hate and ignorance daily... and still live as themselves should tell you everything about how imperative it is for them to do so.
Your daily summary and detailed update from "What's Going on with Shipping":
(He deliberately tries to be non-political; currently it is nearly working). He notes that China's former "This is a Chinese Ship" on the AIS ID that worked in the Red Sea is not working here. There's diplomatic work for Beijing to do there.
This is taken in the Port of Salalah in Oman (which faces the Indian Ocean at the Western end of Oman):
Salalah is a *long* way from Iran. It’s 1,000km South of Muscat.
Yes - I thought that when I checked.
I can't see any reason why Iran could not start dropping drones on the ports on the Red Sea, and on the western end of the Saudi East-West pipeline, other than that they are largely leaving Saudi alone at present.
Perhaps some of our UK/Ukrainian anti-Shahed Octopus drones being made in volume in Mildenhall will be headed for the Gulf in trade for high end missiles from Gulf stocks.
Ukranians are making serious bank from the Gulf states, their military guys arrived here a couple of days ago with the interceptor drones and a lot of knowledge.
They’ll use the money to get more of the expensive stuff they need for defending against missiles and aircraft, although I suspect there’s a worldwide shortage of Patriot missiles at the moment.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.
Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
I'd tentatively support that. There may indeed be a use case for CCS in areas where it is very difficult to avoid CO2 release such as the ones you mention, but there's an awful lot of lower hanging fruit to be picked first. The first priority has got to be electrification of everything that can be electrified and a corresponding massive expansion of low emission electricity generation, transport and storage.
The big gaps are transport (transmission) and storage.
Indeed, though I gather the problems with expansion of transmission are largely political in nature in that people don't want pylons, etc, whereas storage is a more technical issue in that it's just really hard to do.
Battery storage is now cheaper than building hydro. Even if the sites for enough hydro were available - they aren’t. And it’s getting cheaper all the time
The desparate NIMBY pushback is something to behold, though. Particularly when it comes from Green local politicians. Apparently the fact that 30MWh and below doesn’t need the full planning enquiry that a power station gets is Evil.
That’s 10 ISO containers, basically.
Are you sure - unless I’ve got my maths very wrong I suspect it would be 3 40ft containers max
The vape shop fire in Glasgow is going to be a nightmare for this. People are itching to find a way to ban EVs (bikes and cars), batteries etc.
There’s dozens of vape shops on Union St and that end of Sauchiehall St. They can’t all be making money selling vapes. Scottish version of the Turkish barber, or Walter White’s car wash?
Dozens? Google map shows 3 on Union St and Sauchiehall St is nowhere near there (and is any case not throbbing with vape shops).
I see vape shops are the new meme for the only asking questions, great replacement theory lads.
Who, Channel 4?
Ok, vape shops are the new meme for the only asking questions, great replacement theory lads AND Channel 4, neither of whom expressed anything resembling a public opinion on them previous to Sunday.
Previous to Sunday, most people were unaware of the fact that vape kiosks/shops have a large concentration of particularly shitty lithium batteries.
Asking questions after a fire that nearly destroyed a major public transport hub is sensible.
The first level question is about rules for storage of quantities of such items - max numbers, fireproofing storage. See rules for gas cylinders and storing quarters of petrol.
The wiring will also have been atrocious.
The second level questions relate to the failure in enforcement - this is a systemic problem in the U.K. - ever more rules and less and less enforcement.
The third level questions are why pop up shops that accidentally don’t register and don’t pay their taxes are happening. Enforcement is one thing. We are seeing an environment where taxes and costs are not related to profit - which means that the completely honest get clobbered. So we get Trotter Independent Traders. See my frequent comments on the domestic building industry.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.
Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
I'd tentatively support that. There may indeed be a use case for CCS in areas where it is very difficult to avoid CO2 release such as the ones you mention, but there's an awful lot of lower hanging fruit to be picked first. The first priority has got to be electrification of everything that can be electrified and a corresponding massive expansion of low emission electricity generation, transport and storage.
The big gaps are transport (transmission) and storage.
Indeed, though I gather the problems with expansion of transmission are largely political in nature in that people don't want pylons, etc, whereas storage is a more technical issue in that it's just really hard to do.
Battery storage is now cheaper than building hydro. Even if the sites for enough hydro were available - they aren’t. And it’s getting cheaper all the time
The desparate NIMBY pushback is something to behold, though. Particularly when it comes from Green local politicians. Apparently the fact that 30MWh and below doesn’t need the full planning enquiry that a power station gets is Evil.
That’s 10 ISO containers, basically.
Are you sure - unless I’ve got my maths very wrong I suspect it would be 3 40ft containers max
The vape shop fire in Glasgow is going to be a nightmare for this. People are itching to find a way to ban EVs (bikes and cars), batteries etc.
There’s dozens of vape shops on Union St and that end of Sauchiehall St. They can’t all be making money selling vapes. Scottish version of the Turkish barber, or Walter White’s car wash?
Dozens? Google map shows 3 on Union St and Sauchiehall St is nowhere near there (and is any case not throbbing with vape shops).
I see vape shops are the new meme for the only asking questions, great replacement theory lads.
Who, Channel 4?
Ok, vape shops are the new meme for the only asking questions, great replacement theory lads AND Channel 4, neither of whom expressed anything resembling a public opinion on them previous to Sunday.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
Edit: And FWIW, I'd also condemn Norway for their hypocrisy, were this a Norwegian site.
Norway has been a world leader in converting to EV cars, so I don't see why they should come in for condemnation in particular. They're not standing in the way of a transition away from fossil fuels.
Providing a supply of fossil fuels obviously makes it harder for the world to transition away from them. It's like drugs.
People didn't stop using horses because the supply of horses was curtailed. They stopped using horses because a better technology came along.
Provided we don't actively subsidise fossil fuels, I think we can do the same with renewable energy. We don't need to artificially constrain the supply of fossil fuels to achieve most of the transition, we can drive out fossil fuels by having better and cheaper renewable energy*. Once fossil fuel use is reduced to <10% of primary energy demand then we can think of punitive measures to transition the rest from fossil fuels to synthetic fuels generated from renewables.
It's a strategy that was based on a high energy costs idea of the transition, when falls in the cost of renewable technology mean that we can have a low energy cost transition. People's policy ideas haven't kept pace with the development of technology.
* This is one reason why Miliband's failure to adopt regional electricity pricing is so damaging. If adopted it would show that where renewable energy was abundant, it was cheap, and where the country was still reliant on fossil fuels, energy was expensive. It would help to use simple economics to speed up the transition.
Draft 15 of the trans article has been up backstage since 4am 10Mar2026. Of the people currently cleared to see it (rcs1000, DavidL, fitalass, Cyclefree, TSE, Nigelb, kyf_100, turbotubbs) none have suggested further changes and I am in my weekday digs so are limited in what I can do anyway. So Draft 15 is going to be the prepublish version released to the prereaders.
If anybody wants to preread the article before it is released to the mods please let me know by liking this comment before 9pm 12Mar2026 and I'll add you to the backstage.
I'm not looking for an argument and kyf_100 and Cyclefree have added extensive well-argued arguments in both directions as discussants, so change/comment requests in either direction will probably be ignored. Given the very tight word count, additions will additionally be ignored. But if you spot errors, misnumbered sources, typos, bad punctuation, etc, please tell me and I'll change it/collapse screaming/politely note your point in the article.
I have had interest from Nigelb, kyf_100 (who can already see it) and I think @Andy_JS and @Kinabalu want to be pre-readers (can you confirm this please?)
My appeal is for everyone in this debate is to have compassion for @kyf_100 who has real life experience of love and suffered loss and who provides an insight from those directly affected that requires compassion
Thank you. That’s very kind of you indeed to say so.
I would, however, like to note that while I have personal experience of the subject, I’ve written a near-5000-word response (as has Cyclefree) to Viewcode’s post that stands entirely on its own and doesn’t reference “lived experience” at all. Regrettably, arguments aren’t won by tugging at heartstrings. Certainly not in the corridors of power, where practical concerns are all that matter.
So the practical effects of FWS are what I’ve focused on in my response. If people want to rile me up by telling me to “educate” myself after ten years of lived experience and a near-dissertation-length reply for the forthcoming thread header, it will be hard not to give them both barrels. If, on the other hand, people want to debate the facts and arguments as written, I’m happy to discuss the topic calmly.
What my response to Viewcode (having studiously avoided any personal anecdote) avoids is the daily, low-level stress of simply existing while trans, which has only increased since FWS. On better days I sometimes joke, “I’m glad she didn’t live to see all this, because it would have killed her.”
There are analogies (for example, belonging to an ethnic minority) and I don’t want to dismiss those experiences. But I don’t believe anyone on this forum has lived something quite comparable to the stress a trans woman lives under. The constant uncertainty. Not knowing whether the next time you step outside as yourself you’ll be shouted at, harassed, attacked, or worse. Having to hold your pee because using the women’s bathroom might get you filmed and confronted, while using the men’s risks assault. Being unable to get ordinary work because employers fear complaints from people who think your mere existence is offensive or threatening.
That trans people know all this... that they face hate and ignorance daily... and still live as themselves should tell you everything about how imperative it is for them to do so.
I am sure your heartfelt comments will be received with compassion, and you have certainly enlightened me on the subject though it is not one I comment on often
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
Edit: And FWIW, I'd also condemn Norway for their hypocrisy, were this a Norwegian site.
I bet they're having more interesting discussions on politiskveddemal.co.no. Probably lots of discussion of the Danish and Faroese elections.
'Føkk, the bastards want to remove Leif Erikson from the Krone!'
Does anyone know how to preserve an old website? I had one twenty years ago that still exists, although not by typing the address anymore, and I’d like to keep the content for posterity
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
Edit: And FWIW, I'd also condemn Norway for their hypocrisy, were this a Norwegian site.
Norway has been a world leader in converting to EV cars, so I don't see why they should come in for condemnation in particular. They're not standing in the way of a transition away from fossil fuels.
Providing a supply of fossil fuels obviously makes it harder for the world to transition away from them. It's like drugs.
You also can't just go cold turkey and replace it with no food.
Transition away from fossil fuels can only realistically happen at a technological and economically sustainable rate.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.
Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
I'd tentatively support that. There may indeed be a use case for CCS in areas where it is very difficult to avoid CO2 release such as the ones you mention, but there's an awful lot of lower hanging fruit to be picked first. The first priority has got to be electrification of everything that can be electrified and a corresponding massive expansion of low emission electricity generation, transport and storage.
The big gaps are transport (transmission) and storage.
Indeed, though I gather the problems with expansion of transmission are largely political in nature in that people don't want pylons, etc, whereas storage is a more technical issue in that it's just really hard to do.
Battery storage is now cheaper than building hydro. Even if the sites for enough hydro were available - they aren’t. And it’s getting cheaper all the time
The desparate NIMBY pushback is something to behold, though. Particularly when it comes from Green local politicians. Apparently the fact that 30MWh and below doesn’t need the full planning enquiry that a power station gets is Evil.
That’s 10 ISO containers, basically.
Are you sure - unless I’ve got my maths very wrong I suspect it would be 3 40ft containers max
The vape shop fire in Glasgow is going to be a nightmare for this. People are itching to find a way to ban EVs (bikes and cars), batteries etc.
There’s dozens of vape shops on Union St and that end of Sauchiehall St. They can’t all be making money selling vapes. Scottish version of the Turkish barber, or Walter White’s car wash?
Dozens? Google map shows 3 on Union St and Sauchiehall St is nowhere near there (and is any case not throbbing with vape shops).
I see vape shops are the new meme for the only asking questions, great replacement theory lads.
Who, Channel 4?
Ok, vape shops are the new meme for the only asking questions, great replacement theory lads AND Channel 4, neither of whom expressed anything resembling a public opinion on them previous to Sunday.
Touchy!
I'm sure as a long time bettor you know about the concept of aftertiming. I've always thought it a sure sign of a wanker.
British man who ‘filmed missiles’ in Dubai faces two years in jail
Tourists risk two years in prison for posting about Iranian strikes on social media
A British man arrested after allegedly filming missiles targeting Dubai is one of 21 people who have been charged under cybercrime laws.
The 60-year-old man, whose arrest on Monday was first reported by The Telegraph, is said to have deleted the video from his phone immediately when asked. He claims he had no intention of doing anything wrong.
However, the Londoner has been charged together with 20 others in connection with videos and social media posts relating to recent Iranian missile strikes on the United Arab Emirates, according to campaign group Detained in Dubai.
Filming air defence locations. More than a subtle difference.
Don’t film military activity in any country, ever. Including the UK.
That particular “campaign group” has about as much credibility as a Guardian article on someone who was deported.
So you've gone native?
When the bombing of the girls school was first reported a poster on here said it was an Iranian bomb that had gone wrong and linked to a site by a well known' Israeli sympathetic' misinformer. Pretty disgraceful really. Maybe he should apologise?
@Sandpit Do you limit what you post here for the reasons of tight Government monitoring of social media etc in the UAE?
The rules here are the same they were in Ukraine last year, so it’s easy.
Don’t take or post photos and videos of military activity, don’t post fake news, don’t spread rumours, refer to accredited sources of news etc.
On the other hand, look at what CNN are doing in Iran and weep. That’s not journalism, as much as Tucker Carlson going to Moscow wasn’t journalism. They’re just trying to appeal to their audience that hates Trump, to sow seeds of discontent in America. That’s activism.
CNN, alongside the BBC, used to be the Gold Standard of impartial journalism.
“More now from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which says it has struck a "nuclear weapon development compound" during strikes in the "past days in Tehran". It says: "The ‘Taleghan’ compound was utilized by the regime to advance critical capabilities for developing nuclear weapons." The site was used to develop explosives and conduct experiments for a "covert nuclear weapon development programme" in the 2000s, the IDF says. In a statement on Telegram, the IDF says previous strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025 had caused "significant damage" to the programme. "As such, the IDF has recently identified that the regime has taken steps to rehabilitate the compound after it was struck in October 2024", it says.”
More lies from the corrupt IDF .
This must be the slowest nuclear program of all time . Started in the 00s and apparently was going to wipe us all out in two weeks , the same two weeks we’ve been hearing about for the last 30 years .
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes - we should be in EEA
I do not have an opinion on alcohol taxes
I am happy for as many work permits to be issued to asylum seekers where they are an economic benefit to the country
However, I want the boats stopped not just because they are a seriously damaging political issue, but as you know saving lives at seas is at the very heart of my family and nobody should be in a small boat crossing the channel, especially women and children
VADM Lacore had the reputation and respect from her sailors that most Admirals can only dream of but I don't see why Hegseth would give the slightest shit if she runs for Congress in the South Carolina 1st District where she is highly unlikely to win.
Democrats won the district in Trump's last mid-term elections.
It was a narrow win, helped by a contentious GOP primary which saw the incumbent unseated. But the GOP also have a change of candidate this time (in less controversial circumstances - the congresswoman is standing for Governor).
I'd make the Republicans narrow favourites... but that's exactly the situation where they don't want a relatively strong Democrat candidate with a national profile able to draw in cash.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
Edit: And FWIW, I'd also condemn Norway for their hypocrisy, were this a Norwegian site.
That's a key point you mention - the collective approach is difficult. I think much of the attraction of 'international law is for pussies' sentiment is that it's easy to present and understand and is quite exciting to primitive minds. As long as a 24 carat shining example of one of those minds (and a climate denier for good measure) is in the White House it's hard to see things changing for the better.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Everyone in the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if individually a country is 1%, 10% or 0.1% of the total, everyone has to do their part. China is building renewables at a prodigious rate now, no reason why Britain (or even Ireland) can't do the same.
And, if done right, it should make us wealthier, not poorer. We wouldn't be immiserated by yet another war in the Middle East, for starters.
Except that China’s emissions are also increasing rapidly, because alongside the renewables they’re still building coal-fired power stations - because they understand the link between the price of energy and economic activity.
The problem in Europe is that the politicians don’t understand the link between the price of energy and economic activity, and are allowing their economies to be destroyed even more than the Chinese expected in their wildest dreams.
“Net Zero”, as applied across Europe, is both economic suicide and handing the future to an adversary.
Boredom? Trump's attention span isn't long. Think the Americans will de-escalate and claim victory (again) at some point in next few weeks, just not sure if Iran continue lobbing bombs around after that.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Everyone in the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if individually a country is 1%, 10% or 0.1% of the total, everyone has to do their part. China is building renewables at a prodigious rate now, no reason why Britain (or even Ireland) can't do the same.
And, if done right, it should make us wealthier, not poorer. We wouldn't be immiserated by yet another war in the Middle East, for starters.
If I was in power I would be (a) driving the cheapest nuclear provision possible and (b) doing my damndest to drive the green power industry sector in the UK into the stratosphere. GB led the industrial revolution, we should aspire to lead the net zero one too. The opportunities are huge.
Boredom? Trump's attention span isn't long. Think the Americans will de-escalate and claim victory (again) at some point in next few weeks, just not sure if Iran continue lobbing bombs around after that.
Pretty sure Bibi will continue to do so, till around, ooh, let's see, 27 October?
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
Edit: And FWIW, I'd also condemn Norway for their hypocrisy, were this a Norwegian site.
In many ways, Norway is ahead on climate change - see EV take up there.
Until we have a way of replacing fossil fuels in everything, we have to use them.
We can either produce some domestically, or import all of them.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Everyone in the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if individually a country is 1%, 10% or 0.1% of the total, everyone has to do their part. China is building renewables at a prodigious rate now, no reason why Britain (or even Ireland) can't do the same.
And, if done right, it should make us wealthier, not poorer. We wouldn't be immiserated by yet another war in the Middle East, for starters.
If I was in power I would be (a) driving the cheapest nuclear provision possible and (b) doing my damndest to drive the green power industry sector in the UK into the stratosphere. GB led the industrial revolution, we should aspire to lead the net zero one too. The opportunities are huge.
If only there had been a period of say 15 years when this new industry was getting off the ground where the government could have borrowed to invest at ultra low interest rates. Just imagine how successful we could have been then, eh?
Thank Allah I don’t work for the Lloyds Banking Group.
Some customers using Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and Halifax apps have been able to see other users' transactions on their accounts.
Lloyds Banking Group customers reported being able to view charges and payments from other sources on Thursday morning.
A Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson apologised for the issue and said the incident had been quickly resolved.
An investigation is under way.
One woman told BBC Scotland News she was able to see the accounts of six different users on the Bank of Scotland app, including some National Insurance numbers, over a 20-minute period.
Those included transactions from a pub in Newcastle, 154 miles from her home in Kirkcaldy, Fife, fees for using one card abroad and wage payments from a company based in England.
The 55-year-old also reported being able to view benefits payments from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), which use the National Insurance numbers of recipients as a payment reference.
Having worked in the sector for many years and seen many a failed overnight run or log in issues, this is a VERY VERY rare occurence and somewhat inexplicable.
To lose or drop a complete file is one thing, to transpose payments between secure accounts on that file is bizarre!
I must declare it's been 15 years since I was in FinServ but having intimate knowlege of the back end systems like Fiserv, this is deeply concerning and not immediately explainable.
How they back these errors out , correct and investigate fully GOD KNOWS!
My only logical explanation is that if the payments are all Government / Tax / Pension body related - the error may lie with them , not with the Bank that has received the payments in good faith?
It doesn't sound to me like an issue with the payments, but with the app pulling data from different people's accounts.
That's an error that shouldn't really be possible either, but could be an issue with someone mangling a SQL join for reasons best known to themselves.
More likely to be some kind of caching error in an intermediate system between the backend SQL database (probably running on some IBM mainframe system or similar high availability / reliability setup) and the web frontend? Shouldn’t happen of course, but it doesn’t mean the backend data has been corrupted.
(If they have screwed up actual transaction data then that’s a lot more serious, as you rightly point out.)
Did someone try to use that AI COBOL translator that was in the news a couple of weeks ago?
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Everyone in the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if individually a country is 1%, 10% or 0.1% of the total, everyone has to do their part. China is building renewables at a prodigious rate now, no reason why Britain (or even Ireland) can't do the same.
And, if done right, it should make us wealthier, not poorer. We wouldn't be immiserated by yet another war in the Middle East, for starters.
Except that China’s emissions are also increasing rapidly, because alongside the renewables they’re still building coal-fired power stations - because they understand the link between the price of energy and economic activity.
The problem in Europe is that the politicians don’t understand the link between the price of energy and economic activity, and are allowing their economies to be destroyed even more than the Chinese expected in their wildest dreams.
“Net Zero”, as applied across Europe, is both economic suicide and handing the future to an adversary.
Ahem
Something to understand about China - in the post communist carve up, oligarchs took over various sectors. It’s not a command economy in the sense of total centralisation. So you have the Coal Oligarchs, who are now loosing the battle with the Solar Oligarchs.
“More now from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which says it has struck a "nuclear weapon development compound" during strikes in the "past days in Tehran". It says: "The ‘Taleghan’ compound was utilized by the regime to advance critical capabilities for developing nuclear weapons." The site was used to develop explosives and conduct experiments for a "covert nuclear weapon development programme" in the 2000s, the IDF says. In a statement on Telegram, the IDF says previous strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025 had caused "significant damage" to the programme. "As such, the IDF has recently identified that the regime has taken steps to rehabilitate the compound after it was struck in October 2024", it says.”
More lies from the corrupt IDF .
This must be the slowest nuclear program of all time . Started in the 00s and apparently was going to wipe us all out in two weeks , the same two weeks we’ve been hearing about for the last 30 years .
The first British nuclear weapon was tested in 1952. Britain had started work on developing a nuclear bomb in 1940 and, at least after 1945, it didn't have to worry about its nuclear program being bombed by an enemy power.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Everyone in the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if individually a country is 1%, 10% or 0.1% of the total, everyone has to do their part. China is building renewables at a prodigious rate now, no reason why Britain (or even Ireland) can't do the same.
And, if done right, it should make us wealthier, not poorer. We wouldn't be immiserated by yet another war in the Middle East, for starters.
Except that China’s emissions are also increasing rapidly, because alongside the renewables they’re still building coal-fired power stations - because they understand the link between the price of energy and economic activity.
The problem in Europe is that the politicians don’t understand the link between the price of energy and economic activity, and are allowing their economies to be destroyed even more than the Chinese expected in their wildest dreams.
“Net Zero”, as applied across Europe, is both economic suicide and handing the future to an adversary.
Coal use in China has peaked. They're building new coal power plants because the new plants are more efficient than the old plants, but they will replace those in time too.
On the economics of domestic solar, I think I was on this before others here - even though I was quite a late adopter. My impression is that incentives have changed, but that the payback period is still roughly what it was despite many different factors, with lots of changes involving less incentives.
In 2015, domestic electricity was about 16p/kWh. In 2026 it is 25p/kWh. My dual fuel bill at present is £100 per month, compared to £125 back in 2016. My solar array is orientated East-West, with some shading which probably reduces generation by perhaps 1/4.
In 2015 I received 3 cashflows:
About £70-100 for export of some units generated. The reduced bill for units used and not exported, but used. I can only estimate this number. And the generated units not exported. About £400 for FIT payments for all units generated at iirc ~13p/unit.
At present this is now:
About £400 for units exported, at £15.5p (now 12.5p) per unit. The reduced bill for units used and not exported, but used. I can only estimate this number. About £600 for FIT payments on units generated (payments are index linked until 2035 for me) and I generate more since next door trimmed their row of huge trees).
Over the period my electricity usage is reduced by perhaps 40%, and my gas usage by perhaps 65%, in the same 2010 Building Regs standard house (=OK but not great) with some more potential for further reduction and enhancement if generation (panels need a deep clean).
The cost structure now is that panel efficiency is up (eg double sided panels), that electricity prices are up (even though they are now back down again), that export payments are transformed, that house batteries have arrived, that electric cars can have a very large cost impact on solar panel payback., and that tariffs are now way more flexible.
We have grant schemes sometimes, but still it is far more market based. About 10% of UK solar-suitable homes now have panels. That is 1.6-7 million installations.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Does anyone know how to preserve an old website? I had one twenty years ago that still exists, although not by typing the address anymore, and I’d like to keep the content for posterity
QUESTION FROM ME TO PERPLEXITY. AI
Can you give me a list of sites that enable you to archive your site, like "archive.is"
ANSWER FROM PERPLEXITY.AI, THEN CHECKED BY ME Here are well-known services that let you save or view archived copies of web pages, similar to archive.is:
Archive.is (archive.is and others) - Quick and dirty method of archiving a single page
Wayback Machine (archive.org or https://web.archive.org/) – The largest public web archive; you can both browse historical snapshots and use “Save Page Now” to archive a URL on demand.
Google Web Cache (obsolete from 2024) – Enabled you to view a recent cached copy of a page via Google’s search results or cache: operator. Removed in 2024. The "https://cachedview.com/" site *may* replicate the functionality
CachedView (cachedview.nl) – Front-end that lets you quickly see Google, Bing, and other cached versions of a page.
Conifer (obsolete from June 2026) (conifer.rhizome.org) – Free (with limits) archiving for interactive and JavaScript-heavy pages, useful for preserving dynamic sites and web apps.
ArchiveBox (archivebox.io) – Self‑hosted tool that lets you run your own personal “archive.is”-style service and store snapshots you control.
Perma.cc (https://perma.cc/) – Creates permanent, citation-style snapshots, aimed at academics, lawyers, and institutions; limited free tier, stronger focus on long‑term reference.
Memento Time Travel (obsolete from 2025) (was timetravel.mementoweb.org, now https://mementoweb.org/) – Was a Meta-service that queried multiple archives (like the Wayback Machine and others) for past versions of a URL. Shut down 2025.
Pagefreezer (https://www.pagefreezer.com/) – Commercial archiving services aimed at compliance, legal, and enterprise use; they automate ongoing captures of specified sites.
I'd go with archive.org if you want to preserve your website a page at a time. Preserving its functionality is a bit more difficult. How many pages are we talking about?
Does anyone know how to preserve an old website? I had one twenty years ago that still exists, although not by typing the address anymore, and I’d like to keep the content for posterity
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Everyone in the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if individually a country is 1%, 10% or 0.1% of the total, everyone has to do their part. China is building renewables at a prodigious rate now, no reason why Britain (or even Ireland) can't do the same.
And, if done right, it should make us wealthier, not poorer. We wouldn't be immiserated by yet another war in the Middle East, for starters.
If I was in power I would be (a) driving the cheapest nuclear provision possible and (b) doing my damndest to drive the green power industry sector in the UK into the stratosphere. GB led the industrial revolution, we should aspire to lead the net zero one too. The opportunities are huge.
The opportunities were huge, but I fear it's already too late for Britain to be a leader. Other countries have got there first.
There's lots of great innovative work that has been done in Britain over the decades, but it hasn't been backed with investment cash, and so it's gone abroad, or it's been superseded by work done abroad.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
There's more than enough currently being pumped to last 30 years
Stop distorting the truth
Are the current wells dry? Have they stopped producing!? Are they producing oil cheaper than global markets?
“More now from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which says it has struck a "nuclear weapon development compound" during strikes in the "past days in Tehran". It says: "The ‘Taleghan’ compound was utilized by the regime to advance critical capabilities for developing nuclear weapons." The site was used to develop explosives and conduct experiments for a "covert nuclear weapon development programme" in the 2000s, the IDF says. In a statement on Telegram, the IDF says previous strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025 had caused "significant damage" to the programme. "As such, the IDF has recently identified that the regime has taken steps to rehabilitate the compound after it was struck in October 2024", it says.”
More lies from the corrupt IDF .
This must be the slowest nuclear program of all time . Started in the 00s and apparently was going to wipe us all out in two weeks , the same two weeks we’ve been hearing about for the last 30 years .
The first British nuclear weapon was tested in 1952. Britain had started work on developing a nuclear bomb in 1940 and, at least after 1945, it didn't have to worry about its nuclear program being bombed by an enemy power.
The history of UK bomb is yet more evidence of the US stitching up UK, for those who believe The Special Relationship is a con and has never existed.
* Initial Development (Joint): During World War II, the UK was actually ahead in research, initiating the "Tube Alloys" project. Due to the threat of bombing and lack of resources, the UK merged its efforts with the US in 1943, playing a significant role in the Manhattan Project. * Post-War Separation (Alone): After WWII, the 1946 McMahon Act passed by Congress prohibited the US from sharing nuclear technology, effectively cutting the UK out of the information it helped create. As a result, the UK decided to develop its own bomb, "High Explosive Research," to maintain its status as a great power. * First Successful Test (Alone): The UK developed its own atomic bomb independently and successfully tested it in October 1952, making it the third country to do so. * Later Partnership (US Dependent): While the initial atomic bombs were independent, the UK later relied heavily on the US for its nuclear deterrent. The 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement resumed cooperation, and the UK has purchased its nuclear missile systems (Polaris, then Trident) from the US since the 1960s.
Does anyone know how to preserve an old website? I had one twenty years ago that still exists, although not by typing the address anymore, and I’d like to keep the content for posterity
Take a backup of it from the hosting provider, or if that’s not possible most browsers have a “file>save” option which should work fine on most old websites.
Happy to help more specifically if you want to DM me.
Does anyone know how to preserve an old website? I had one twenty years ago that still exists, although not by typing the address anymore, and I’d like to keep the content for posterity
I've given you the AI answer, but there's a problem. That problem is:
Any web-based archive provider will eventually fail
The only real answer to the problem is to create a copy of the website on your laptop/computer/phone. I could do that with my 1990/2000s HTML skills (stop laughing) but I assume there are more sophisticated methods now.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
There's more than enough currently being pumped to last 30 years
Stop distorting the truth
Are the current wells dry? Have they stopped producing!? Are they producing oil cheaper than global markets?
If any answer is not NO
Come back and enlighten us plesse
I suggest you talk to the several people in the industry, who are in this conversation.
We are permanent shutting down wells that have plenty of gas and oil in the. We are not drilling any new wells.
The UK North Sea sector is being systematically shutdown. The Norwegian sector is not.
British man who ‘filmed missiles’ in Dubai faces two years in jail
Tourists risk two years in prison for posting about Iranian strikes on social media
A British man arrested after allegedly filming missiles targeting Dubai is one of 21 people who have been charged under cybercrime laws.
The 60-year-old man, whose arrest on Monday was first reported by The Telegraph, is said to have deleted the video from his phone immediately when asked. He claims he had no intention of doing anything wrong.
However, the Londoner has been charged together with 20 others in connection with videos and social media posts relating to recent Iranian missile strikes on the United Arab Emirates, according to campaign group Detained in Dubai.
Filming air defence locations. More than a subtle difference.
Don’t film military activity in any country, ever. Including the UK.
That particular “campaign group” has about as much credibility as a Guardian article on someone who was deported.
So you've gone native?
When the bombing of the girls school was first reported a poster on here said it was an Iranian bomb that had gone wrong and linked to a site by a well known' Israeli sympathetic' misinformer. Pretty disgraceful really. Maybe he should apologise?
@Sandpit Do you limit what you post here for the reasons of tight Government monitoring of social media etc in the UAE?
The rules here are the same they were in Ukraine last year, so it’s easy.
Don’t take or post photos and videos of military activity, don’t post fake news, don’t spread rumours, refer to accredited sources of news etc.
On the other hand, look at what CNN are doing in Iran and weep. That’s not journalism, as much as Tucker Carlson going to Moscow wasn’t journalism. They’re just trying to appeal to their audience that hates Trump, to sow seeds of discontent in America. That’s activism.
CNN, alongside the BBC, used to be the Gold Standard of impartial journalism.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
“More now from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which says it has struck a "nuclear weapon development compound" during strikes in the "past days in Tehran". It says: "The ‘Taleghan’ compound was utilized by the regime to advance critical capabilities for developing nuclear weapons." The site was used to develop explosives and conduct experiments for a "covert nuclear weapon development programme" in the 2000s, the IDF says. In a statement on Telegram, the IDF says previous strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025 had caused "significant damage" to the programme. "As such, the IDF has recently identified that the regime has taken steps to rehabilitate the compound after it was struck in October 2024", it says.”
More lies from the corrupt IDF .
This must be the slowest nuclear program of all time . Started in the 00s and apparently was going to wipe us all out in two weeks , the same two weeks we’ve been hearing about for the last 30 years .
The first British nuclear weapon was tested in 1952. Britain had started work on developing a nuclear bomb in 1940 and, at least after 1945, it didn't have to worry about its nuclear program being bombed by an enemy power.
The history of UK bomb is yet more evidence of the US stitching up UK, for those who believe The Special Relationship is a con and has never existed.
I thought the most important lesson was that the UK used to be really good at coming up with code words for secret projects. "Tube Alloys" following on from "Tanks" is the sort of thing that blows the "Manhattan Project" out of the water.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
The loonies are the ones who dont want more renewables.
Like to see Trump trying to stop the wind and sun with another war
British man who ‘filmed missiles’ in Dubai faces two years in jail
Tourists risk two years in prison for posting about Iranian strikes on social media
A British man arrested after allegedly filming missiles targeting Dubai is one of 21 people who have been charged under cybercrime laws.
The 60-year-old man, whose arrest on Monday was first reported by The Telegraph, is said to have deleted the video from his phone immediately when asked. He claims he had no intention of doing anything wrong.
However, the Londoner has been charged together with 20 others in connection with videos and social media posts relating to recent Iranian missile strikes on the United Arab Emirates, according to campaign group Detained in Dubai.
Filming air defence locations. More than a subtle difference.
Don’t film military activity in any country, ever. Including the UK.
That particular “campaign group” has about as much credibility as a Guardian article on someone who was deported.
So you've gone native?
When the bombing of the girls school was first reported a poster on here said it was an Iranian bomb that had gone wrong and linked to a site by a well known' Israeli sympathetic' misinformer. Pretty disgraceful really. Maybe he should apologise?
@Sandpit Do you limit what you post here for the reasons of tight Government monitoring of social media etc in the UAE?
The rules here are the same they were in Ukraine last year, so it’s easy.
Don’t take or post photos and videos of military activity, don’t post fake news, don’t spread rumours, refer to accredited sources of news etc.
On the other hand, look at what CNN are doing in Iran and weep. That’s not journalism, as much as Tucker Carlson going to Moscow wasn’t journalism. They’re just trying to appeal to their audience that hates Trump, to sow seeds of discontent in America. That’s activism.
CNN, alongside the BBC, used to be the Gold Standard of impartial journalism.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
The loonies are the ones who dont want more renewables.
Like to see Trump trying to stop the wind and sun with another war
“More now from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which says it has struck a "nuclear weapon development compound" during strikes in the "past days in Tehran". It says: "The ‘Taleghan’ compound was utilized by the regime to advance critical capabilities for developing nuclear weapons." The site was used to develop explosives and conduct experiments for a "covert nuclear weapon development programme" in the 2000s, the IDF says. In a statement on Telegram, the IDF says previous strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025 had caused "significant damage" to the programme. "As such, the IDF has recently identified that the regime has taken steps to rehabilitate the compound after it was struck in October 2024", it says.”
More lies from the corrupt IDF .
This must be the slowest nuclear program of all time . Started in the 00s and apparently was going to wipe us all out in two weeks , the same two weeks we’ve been hearing about for the last 30 years .
The first British nuclear weapon was tested in 1952. Britain had started work on developing a nuclear bomb in 1940 and, at least after 1945, it didn't have to worry about its nuclear program being bombed by an enemy power.
The history of UK bomb is yet more evidence of the US stitching up UK, for those who believe The Special Relationship is a con and has never existed.
I thought the most important lesson was that the UK used to be really good at coming up with code words for secret projects. "Tube Alloys" following on from "Tanks" is the sort of thing that blows the "Manhattan Project" out of the water.
The UK demonstrated (kinda) that UK scientists could build a multistager. The U.K. and US programs then merged - American design use U.K. features. This really annoyed the French, because we got a decade or two of miniaturisation tech overnight. The designs that got away from explosive lenses were particularly WTF. The thought process that led to the modern landless design is curious, certainly.
On code names, I give you (drum roll) Green Cheese.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
The rule taker narrative is a myth. Though of course that wouldn't stop the Tories and Reform trying to make something of it. But many in Reform previously wanted the EEA option.
And I am in favour of Freedom of Movement (from everywhere not just the EU) so that isn't an issue for me.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
The loonies are the ones who dont want more renewables.
Like to see Trump trying to stop the wind and sun with another war
It's not either or
It is both and solved by a longer transition
Solved more quickly by not having self styled "strong leaders" invading and bombing other countries. And by each and every one of us not jumping to support them when they do.
Draft 15 of the trans article has been up backstage since 4am 10Mar2026. Of the people currently cleared to see it (rcs1000, DavidL, fitalass, Cyclefree, TSE, Nigelb, kyf_100, turbotubbs) none have suggested further changes and I am in my weekday digs so are limited in what I can do anyway. So Draft 15 is going to be the prepublish version released to the prereaders.
If anybody wants to preread the article before it is released to the mods please let me know by liking this comment before 9pm 12Mar2026 and I'll add you to the backstage.
I'm not looking for an argument and kyf_100 and Cyclefree have added extensive well-argued arguments in both directions as discussants, so change/comment requests in either direction will probably be ignored. Given the very tight word count, additions will additionally be ignored. But if you spot errors, misnumbered sources, typos, bad punctuation, etc, please tell me and I'll change it/collapse screaming/politely note your point in the article.
I have had interest from Nigelb, kyf_100 (who can already see it) and I think @Andy_JS and @Kinabalu want to be pre-readers (can you confirm this please?)
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Everyone in the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels. It doesn't matter if individually a country is 1%, 10% or 0.1% of the total, everyone has to do their part. China is building renewables at a prodigious rate now, no reason why Britain (or even Ireland) can't do the same.
And, if done right, it should make us wealthier, not poorer. We wouldn't be immiserated by yet another war in the Middle East, for starters.
Except that China’s emissions are also increasing rapidly, because alongside the renewables they’re still building coal-fired power stations - because they understand the link between the price of energy and economic activity.
The problem in Europe is that the politicians don’t understand the link between the price of energy and economic activity, and are allowing their economies to be destroyed even more than the Chinese expected in their wildest dreams.
“Net Zero”, as applied across Europe, is both economic suicide and handing the future to an adversary.
Ahem
Something to understand about China - in the post communist carve up, oligarchs took over various sectors. It’s not a command economy in the sense of total centralisation. So you have the Coal Oligarchs, who are now loosing the battle with the Solar Oligarchs.
They’re very slowly reducing emissions from a high baseline, while still constructing new coal-fired power stations.
No-one in the Western world is saying that a new coal-fired power station is more efficient than an old coal-fired power station, they’re saying that coal is bad and we should all pay more for energy.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
There's more than enough currently being pumped to last 30 years
Stop distorting the truth
Are the current wells dry? Have they stopped producing!? Are they producing oil cheaper than global markets?
If any answer is not NO
Come back and enlighten us plesse
Wrong on every question.
Yes current wells are running dry and need replacing. I have explained on here before it is called maintaining the plateau and it is something we are failing to do. Hence the reason I am involved with shutting down otherwise viable fields and platforms.
Yes the wells have stopped producing. Wells have a finite existence and continualy need to be replaced.
Yes we can produce oil far cheaper than the global market. Current costs are about 25 to 30 dollars a barrel including all costs both offshore and onshore.
British man who ‘filmed missiles’ in Dubai faces two years in jail
Tourists risk two years in prison for posting about Iranian strikes on social media
A British man arrested after allegedly filming missiles targeting Dubai is one of 21 people who have been charged under cybercrime laws.
The 60-year-old man, whose arrest on Monday was first reported by The Telegraph, is said to have deleted the video from his phone immediately when asked. He claims he had no intention of doing anything wrong.
However, the Londoner has been charged together with 20 others in connection with videos and social media posts relating to recent Iranian missile strikes on the United Arab Emirates, according to campaign group Detained in Dubai.
Filming air defence locations. More than a subtle difference.
Don’t film military activity in any country, ever. Including the UK.
That particular “campaign group” has about as much credibility as a Guardian article on someone who was deported.
So you've gone native?
When the bombing of the girls school was first reported a poster on here said it was an Iranian bomb that had gone wrong and linked to a site by a well known' Israeli sympathetic' misinformer. Pretty disgraceful really. Maybe he should apologise?
We are not known to agree, but the girls school is just horrible as is Gaza and those guilty men, as they are all men, need to be charged in the international courts and includes Netanyahu, Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, Iran's regime and let's not forget Putin and Trump
Well maybe the person who posted "Reports on social media say the school was bombed by the IRCG and not by the Israelis or the Americans" needs to look in the mirror. There was also some pretty derogatory stuff about the girls by a couple of posters.
Then a link to 'THE IRCG HAS ADMITTED THAT THE SCHOOL WAS HIT BY ONE OF IT'S OWN ANTI AIRCRAFT MISSILES' A clear and obvious invention.
I won't name the poster who posted this tripe but the person linked to was Jonathon Foreman
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
Recent backgrounder on Norway's relationship with the EU. Interesting issue arising about participation fees. Norway participates in EU programmes on a pay-as-you-go basis. But because the number of EU programmes is proliferating they are ending up paying more than as members. I think this becoming an issue for the UK as well
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
The loonies are the ones who dont want more renewables.
Like to see Trump trying to stop the wind and sun with another war
It's not either or
It is both and solved by a longer transition
Solved more quickly by not having self styled "strong leaders" invading and bombing other countries. And by each and every one of us not jumping to support them when they do.
I often wish the world was different, but we have a mad man in the US and in attacking Iran he has exposed our interests in the Middle East to attack so the question is what would you do.?
Abandon our forces, personal and 300,000 Brits or take whatever action is needed to protect them
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
There's more than enough currently being pumped to last 30 years
Stop distorting the truth
Are the current wells dry? Have they stopped producing!? Are they producing oil cheaper than global markets?
If any answer is not NO
Come back and enlighten us plesse
Wrong on every question.
Yes current wells are running dry and need replacing. I have explained on here before it is called maintaining the plateau and it is something we are failing to do. Hence the reason I am involved with shutting down otherwise viable fields and platforms.
Yes the wells have stopped producing. Wells have a finite existence and continualy need to be replaced.
Yes we can produce oil far cheaper than the global market. Current costs are about 25 to 30 dollars a barrel including all costs both offshore and onshore.
So sorry you are completely wrong on this.
So the 100 dollars a barrel is an indication of price gouging by the oil companies?
British man who ‘filmed missiles’ in Dubai faces two years in jail
Tourists risk two years in prison for posting about Iranian strikes on social media
A British man arrested after allegedly filming missiles targeting Dubai is one of 21 people who have been charged under cybercrime laws.
The 60-year-old man, whose arrest on Monday was first reported by The Telegraph, is said to have deleted the video from his phone immediately when asked. He claims he had no intention of doing anything wrong.
However, the Londoner has been charged together with 20 others in connection with videos and social media posts relating to recent Iranian missile strikes on the United Arab Emirates, according to campaign group Detained in Dubai.
Filming air defence locations. More than a subtle difference.
Don’t film military activity in any country, ever. Including the UK.
That particular “campaign group” has about as much credibility as a Guardian article on someone who was deported.
So you've gone native?
When the bombing of the girls school was first reported a poster on here said it was an Iranian bomb that had gone wrong and linked to a site by a well known' Israeli sympathetic' misinformer. Pretty disgraceful really. Maybe he should apologise?
We are not known to agree, but the girls school is just horrible as is Gaza and those guilty men, as they are all men, need to be charged in the international courts and includes Netanyahu, Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, Iran's regime and let's not forget Putin and Trump
Well maybe the person who posted "Reports on social media say the school was bombed by the IRCG and not by the Israelis or the Americans" needs to look in the mirror. There was also some pretty derogatory stuff about the girls by a couple of posters.
Then a link to 'THE IRCG HAS ADMITTED THAT THE SCHOOL WAS HIT BY ONE OF IT'S OWN ANTI AIRCRAFT MISSILES' A clear and obvious invention.
I won't name the poster who posted this tripe but the person linked to was Jonathon Foreman
It is obvious the US are responsible for this terrible act
Does anyone know how to preserve an old website? I had one twenty years ago that still exists, although not by typing the address anymore, and I’d like to keep the content for posterity
QUESTION FROM ME TO PERPLEXITY. AI
Can you give me a list of sites that enable you to archive your site, like "archive.is"
ANSWER FROM PERPLEXITY.AI, THEN CHECKED BY ME Here are well-known services that let you save or view archived copies of web pages, similar to archive.is:
Archive.is (archive.is and others) - Quick and dirty method of archiving a single page
Wayback Machine (archive.org or https://web.archive.org/) – The largest public web archive; you can both browse historical snapshots and use “Save Page Now” to archive a URL on demand.
Google Web Cache (obsolete from 2024) – Enabled you to view a recent cached copy of a page via Google’s search results or cache: operator. Removed in 2024. The "https://cachedview.com/" site *may* replicate the functionality
CachedView (cachedview.nl) – Front-end that lets you quickly see Google, Bing, and other cached versions of a page.
Conifer (obsolete from June 2026) (conifer.rhizome.org) – Free (with limits) archiving for interactive and JavaScript-heavy pages, useful for preserving dynamic sites and web apps.
ArchiveBox (archivebox.io) – Self‑hosted tool that lets you run your own personal “archive.is”-style service and store snapshots you control.
Perma.cc (https://perma.cc/) – Creates permanent, citation-style snapshots, aimed at academics, lawyers, and institutions; limited free tier, stronger focus on long‑term reference.
Memento Time Travel (obsolete from 2025) (was timetravel.mementoweb.org, now https://mementoweb.org/) – Was a Meta-service that queried multiple archives (like the Wayback Machine and others) for past versions of a URL. Shut down 2025.
Pagefreezer (https://www.pagefreezer.com/) – Commercial archiving services aimed at compliance, legal, and enterprise use; they automate ongoing captures of specified sites.
I'd go with archive.org if you want to preserve your website a page at a time. Preserving its functionality is a bit more difficult. How many pages are we talking about?
I used to have a thing that spidered any site I pointed it (starting address, link radius, filter list), and archived locally on my PC, running a local web server. It did not work with too heavy server-side functionality, but did follow all identificable links.
There are things like HTTrack, Octoparse or Screaming Fog that do similar.
Comments
And, if done right, it should make us wealthier, not poorer. We wouldn't be immiserated by yet another war in the Middle East, for starters.
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/bank-data-center-struck-by-missile-in-iran-report/
They’d better hope they can get their disaster recovery data centre up before payday.
They do have a disaster recovery data centre, right?
However, he apparently faces up to 100,000 more document releases as it just keeps on coming
His fate is in the hands of his mps, but if they are looking at an existential threat after May then they may well act, unless of course it is all too much for him and he resigns
Edit: And FWIW, I'd also condemn Norway for their hypocrisy, were this a Norwegian site.
To lose or drop a complete file is one thing, to transpose payments between secure accounts on that file is bizarre!
I must declare it's been 15 years since I was in FinServ but having intimate knowlege of the back end systems like Fiserv, this is deeply concerning and not immediately explainable.
How they back these errors out , correct and investigate fully GOD KNOWS!
My only logical explanation is that if the payments are all Government / Tax / Pension body related - the error may lie with them , not with the Bank that has received the payments in good faith?
This just does not make sense
Tories clearly think theyve got him. Cleverly earlier and now Badenoch call for Starmer to resign.
Time will tell.
https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/2031990560609677528?s=20
That's an error that shouldn't really be possible either, but could be an issue with someone mangling a SQL join for reasons best known to themselves.
(If they have screwed up actual transaction data then that’s a lot more serious, as you rightly point out.)
Incumbent running for Governor.
If you also happen to be concerned about climate change (which should be all of us aged under 50, and some generous older people too), the hope is renewable technology will also kill off demand for fossil fuels. It's already happened - solar and battery is cheaper and the only hurdle is a relatively small investment and getting the incentives in the right place.
I would, however, like to note that while I have personal experience of the subject, I’ve written a near-5000-word response (as has Cyclefree) to Viewcode’s post that stands entirely on its own and doesn’t reference “lived experience” at all. Regrettably, arguments aren’t won by tugging at heartstrings. Certainly not in the corridors of power, where practical concerns are all that matter.
So the practical effects of FWS are what I’ve focused on in my response. If people want to rile me up by telling me to “educate” myself after ten years of lived experience and a near-dissertation-length reply for the forthcoming thread header, it will be hard not to give them both barrels. If, on the other hand, people want to debate the facts and arguments as written, I’m happy to discuss the topic calmly.
What my response to Viewcode (having studiously avoided any personal anecdote) avoids is the daily, low-level stress of simply existing while trans, which has only increased since FWS. On better days I sometimes joke, “I’m glad she didn’t live to see all this, because it would have killed her.”
There are analogies (for example, belonging to an ethnic minority) and I don’t want to dismiss those experiences. But I don’t believe anyone on this forum has lived something quite comparable to the stress a trans woman lives under. The constant uncertainty. Not knowing whether the next time you step outside as yourself you’ll be shouted at, harassed, attacked, or worse. Having to hold your pee because using the women’s bathroom might get you filmed and confronted, while using the men’s risks assault. Being unable to get ordinary work because employers fear complaints from people who think your mere existence is offensive or threatening.
That trans people know all this... that they face hate and ignorance daily... and still live as themselves should tell you everything about how imperative it is for them to do so.
They’ll use the money to get more of the expensive stuff they need for defending against missiles and aircraft, although I suspect there’s a worldwide shortage of Patriot missiles at the moment.
Asking questions after a fire that nearly destroyed a major public transport hub is sensible.
The first level question is about rules for storage of quantities of such items - max numbers, fireproofing storage. See rules for gas cylinders and storing quarters of petrol.
The wiring will also have been atrocious.
The second level questions relate to the failure in enforcement - this is a systemic problem in the U.K. - ever more rules and less and less enforcement.
The third level questions are why pop up shops that accidentally don’t register and don’t pay their taxes are happening. Enforcement is one thing. We are seeing an environment where taxes and costs are not related to profit - which means that the completely honest get clobbered. So we get Trotter Independent Traders. See my frequent comments on the domestic building industry.
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Provided we don't actively subsidise fossil fuels, I think we can do the same with renewable energy. We don't need to artificially constrain the supply of fossil fuels to achieve most of the transition, we can drive out fossil fuels by having better and cheaper renewable energy*. Once fossil fuel use is reduced to <10% of primary energy demand then we can think of punitive measures to transition the rest from fossil fuels to synthetic fuels generated from renewables.
It's a strategy that was based on a high energy costs idea of the transition, when falls in the cost of renewable technology mean that we can have a low energy cost transition. People's policy ideas haven't kept pace with the development of technology.
* This is one reason why Miliband's failure to adopt regional electricity pricing is so damaging. If adopted it would show that where renewable energy was abundant, it was cheap, and where the country was still reliant on fossil fuels, energy was expensive. It would help to use simple economics to speed up the transition.
Thank you for your contributions
@RonFilipkowski
·
11h
At this rate Trump might have to release the rest of the Epstein files to distract from gas prices.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/2031882707030966565?s=20
Transition away from fossil fuels can only realistically happen at a technological and economically sustainable rate.
Miliband hasn't got the right balance on that.
Don’t take or post photos and videos of military activity, don’t post fake news, don’t spread rumours, refer to accredited sources of news etc.
On the other hand, look at what CNN are doing in Iran and weep. That’s not journalism, as much as Tucker Carlson going to Moscow wasn’t journalism. They’re just trying to appeal to their audience that hates Trump, to sow seeds of discontent in America. That’s activism.
CNN, alongside the BBC, used to be the Gold Standard of impartial journalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aSPF9Wq3xw
“More now from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which says it has struck a "nuclear weapon development compound" during strikes in the "past days in Tehran".
It says: "The ‘Taleghan’ compound was utilized by the regime to advance critical capabilities for developing nuclear weapons."
The site was used to develop explosives and conduct experiments for a "covert nuclear weapon development programme" in the 2000s, the IDF says.
In a statement on Telegram, the IDF says previous strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025 had caused "significant damage" to the programme.
"As such, the IDF has recently identified that the regime has taken steps to rehabilitate the compound after it was struck in October 2024", it says.”
More lies from the corrupt IDF .
This must be the slowest nuclear program of all time . Started in the 00s and apparently was going to wipe us all out in two weeks , the same two weeks we’ve been hearing about for the last 30 years .
I do not have an opinion on alcohol taxes
I am happy for as many work permits to be issued to asylum seekers where they are an economic benefit to the country
However, I want the boats stopped not just because they are a seriously damaging political issue, but as you know saving lives at seas is at the very heart of my family and nobody should be in a small boat crossing the channel, especially women and children
It was a narrow win, helped by a contentious GOP primary which saw the incumbent unseated. But the GOP also have a change of candidate this time (in less controversial circumstances - the congresswoman is standing for Governor).
I'd make the Republicans narrow favourites... but that's exactly the situation where they don't want a relatively strong Democrat candidate with a national profile able to draw in cash.
The problem in Europe is that the politicians don’t understand the link between the price of energy and economic activity, and are allowing their economies to be destroyed even more than the Chinese expected in their wildest dreams.
“Net Zero”, as applied across Europe, is both economic suicide and handing the future to an adversary.
Until we have a way of replacing fossil fuels in everything, we have to use them.
We can either produce some domestically, or import all of them.
Which is better?
Something to understand about China - in the post communist carve up, oligarchs took over various sectors. It’s not a command economy in the sense of total centralisation. So you have the Coal Oligarchs, who are now loosing the battle with the Solar Oligarchs.
In 2015, domestic electricity was about 16p/kWh. In 2026 it is 25p/kWh.
My dual fuel bill at present is £100 per month, compared to £125 back in 2016.
My solar array is orientated East-West, with some shading which probably reduces generation by perhaps 1/4.
In 2015 I received 3 cashflows:
About £70-100 for export of some units generated.
The reduced bill for units used and not exported, but used. I can only estimate this number.
And the generated units not exported. About £400 for FIT payments for all units generated at iirc ~13p/unit.
At present this is now:
About £400 for units exported, at £15.5p (now 12.5p) per unit.
The reduced bill for units used and not exported, but used. I can only estimate this number.
About £600 for FIT payments on units generated (payments are index linked until 2035 for me) and I generate more since next door trimmed their row of huge trees).
Over the period my electricity usage is reduced by perhaps 40%, and my gas usage by perhaps 65%, in the same 2010 Building Regs standard house (=OK but not great) with some more potential for further reduction and enhancement if generation (panels need a deep clean).
The cost structure now is that panel efficiency is up (eg double sided panels), that electricity prices are up (even though they are now back down again), that export payments are transformed, that house batteries have arrived, that electric cars can have a very large cost impact on solar panel payback., and that tariffs are now way more flexible.
We have grant schemes sometimes, but still it is far more market based. About 10% of UK solar-suitable homes now have panels. That is 1.6-7 million installations.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
- Can you give me a list of sites that enable you to archive your site, like "archive.is"
ANSWER FROM PERPLEXITY.AI, THEN CHECKED BY MEHere are well-known services that let you save or view archived copies of web pages, similar to archive.is:
- Archive.is (archive.is and others) - Quick and dirty method of archiving a single page
- Wayback Machine (archive.org or https://web.archive.org/) – The largest public web archive; you can both browse historical snapshots and use “Save Page Now” to archive a URL on demand.
- Google Web Cache (obsolete from 2024) – Enabled you to view a recent cached copy of a page via Google’s search results or cache: operator. Removed in 2024. The "https://cachedview.com/" site *may* replicate the functionality
- CachedView (cachedview.nl) – Front-end that lets you quickly see Google, Bing, and other cached versions of a page.
- Conifer (obsolete from June 2026) (conifer.rhizome.org) – Free (with limits) archiving for interactive and JavaScript-heavy pages, useful for preserving dynamic sites and web apps.
- ArchiveBox (archivebox.io) – Self‑hosted tool that lets you run your own personal “archive.is”-style service and store snapshots you control.
- Perma.cc (https://perma.cc/) – Creates permanent, citation-style snapshots, aimed at academics, lawyers, and institutions; limited free tier, stronger focus on long‑term reference.
- Memento Time Travel (obsolete from 2025) (was timetravel.mementoweb.org, now https://mementoweb.org/) – Was a Meta-service that queried multiple archives (like the Wayback Machine and others) for past versions of a URL. Shut down 2025.
- Pagefreezer (https://www.pagefreezer.com/) – Commercial archiving services aimed at compliance, legal, and enterprise use; they automate ongoing captures of specified sites.
- Stillio (https://www.stillio.com/) - As pagefreezer
- MirrorWeb (https://www.mirrorweb.com/) - As pagefreezer
ADDITION BY METhere's lots of great innovative work that has been done in Britain over the decades, but it hasn't been backed with investment cash, and so it's gone abroad, or it's been superseded by work done abroad.
Stop distorting the truth
Are the current wells dry?
Have they stopped producing!?
Are they producing oil cheaper than global markets?
If any answer is not NO
Come back and enlighten us plesse
* Initial Development (Joint): During World War II, the UK was actually ahead in research, initiating the "Tube Alloys" project. Due to the threat of bombing and lack of resources, the UK merged its efforts with the US in 1943, playing a significant role in the Manhattan Project.
* Post-War Separation (Alone): After WWII, the 1946 McMahon Act passed by Congress prohibited the US from sharing nuclear technology, effectively cutting the UK out of the information it helped create. As a result, the UK decided to develop its own bomb, "High Explosive Research," to maintain its status as a great power.
* First Successful Test (Alone): The UK developed its own atomic bomb independently and successfully tested it in October 1952, making it the third country to do so.
* Later Partnership (US Dependent): While the initial atomic bombs were independent, the UK later relied heavily on the US for its nuclear deterrent. The 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement resumed cooperation, and the UK has purchased its nuclear missile systems (Polaris, then Trident) from the US since the 1960s.
Happy to help more specifically if you want to DM me.
Congress could rediscover their constitutional role in war, tell the World the war is over, impeach the Mad King and all of his cabinet.
Any web-based archive provider will eventually fail
The only real answer to the problem is to create a copy of the website on your laptop/computer/phone. I could do that with my 1990/2000s HTML skills (stop laughing) but I assume there are more sophisticated methods now.
We are permanent shutting down wells that have plenty of gas and oil in the. We are not drilling any new wells.
The UK North Sea sector is being systematically shutdown. The Norwegian sector is not.
Like to see Trump trying to stop the wind and sun with another war
Mail
Telegraph.
Express
GB News
Any sane person knows that
I wouldn't subject diarrhoea to that crap
It is both and solved by a longer transition
On code names, I give you (drum roll) Green Cheese.
https://x.com/BarryGardiner/status/2031684082883530908
Since privatisation water companies have taken more than £85billion in dividend and piled up more than £60billion of debt.
Yet all capital and operational costs are covered by bill payers.
So why keep a privatised structure for a natural monopoly like water?
“Terrorist regimes target civilians, we do not.”
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
That’s the core issue here, it takes 2 to tango and both sides need to de-escalate - why would Iran do that at the moment
And I am in favour of Freedom of Movement (from everywhere not just the EU) so that isn't an issue for me.
And by each and every one of us not jumping to support them when they do.
No-one in the Western world is saying that a new coal-fired power station is more efficient than an old coal-fired power station, they’re saying that coal is bad and we should all pay more for energy.
I can hear the laughing in Beijing from here.
Yes current wells are running dry and need replacing. I have explained on here before it is called maintaining the plateau and it is something we are failing to do. Hence the reason I am involved with shutting down otherwise viable fields and platforms.
Yes the wells have stopped producing. Wells have a finite existence and continualy need to be replaced.
Yes we can produce oil far cheaper than the global market. Current costs are about 25 to 30 dollars a barrel including all costs both offshore and onshore.
So sorry you are completely wrong on this.
Then a link to 'THE IRCG HAS ADMITTED THAT THE SCHOOL WAS HIT BY ONE OF IT'S OWN ANTI AIRCRAFT MISSILES' A clear and obvious invention.
I won't name the poster who posted this tripe but the person linked to was Jonathon Foreman
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/norways-relationship-with-the-eu/
Abandon our forces, personal and 300,000 Brits or take whatever action is needed to protect them
There are things like HTTrack, Octoparse or Screaming Fog that do similar.
Try looking at
:https://www.keycdn.com/blog/web-crawlers .
It's old, but so is your application. I'd start with HTTrack.