The new phase

Just watching Joan d’Arc and the mother said that she thought she knew her children when she brought them up but now she is surprised.

That is what probably happens to most parents. How close relationships remain is up to the dialogue that parents and children can develop.

Whilst I think of dialogue, I think everybody needs to support the new direction of Britain being out of the EU. I get Government up-dates each day and the more I read them the more I am getting convinced that all, even if they opposed leaving the EU, now have to support the new direction.

Read Michael Gove’s Outside the EU, a bright future awaits Britain, published by the Cabinet Office on 12. July 2020.

We need to make our best effort to contribute. We need to support what is there and the way the government leads us is what we need to support.

For me as immigrant from Germany, the thought of leaving the EU was unthinkable, but then I am not very familiar with the ins and outs of daily wheeling and dealing in economic or political terms. We have to trust the government and support it.

 

Energy consumption

india_fuel

India uses the most fossil fuel

Use of any type of energy, that is produced with the effect of carbon emmission will contribute towards global warming.

If we reduce energy consumption in whichever shape or form, we’ll do good for our planet.

Lets look at cooking for example. It makes a huge difference whether we use gas, electric hobs or induction.

I have realised that induction hobs use considerably less energy than any other form of cooking.

Yet what makes is very difficult for most people to actually get the latest white goods to instal in their kitchen is to have the facilities to do so.

My landlord for example, is a social landlord. They make a kitchen available and that kitchen has built in units with a facility for an built-under double oven and hob.

The measurments however are so tight, that it would not accommodate the standard of goods available in the market today.

The kitchen was made to accommodate a double oven and a gas hob or hob that doesn’t sink into the work top below the work-top level.

Now most work-tops quite thin.

Induction hobs tend to sink into the oven space and take about 2 cm away, which makes it impossible to fit into it any standard double oven.

Yet, when I asked my landlord about altering the kitchen unit the accommodate the latest energy saving cooking method, they refused, telling me that I just have to get what I can fit into the space provided or make an application to alter the unit myself.

The problem with altering any type of standard kitchen unit from a landlord, means they make you responsible for the maintance of it, and that piles on a cost, which otherwise tenants would not have to pay.

So all in all using the most energy friendly form of cooking is being made impossible by inflexible furnishings, provided by landlords and owners who do not want to facilitate change because of the cost.

Landlords should be made to provide flexible fittings, which accommodate any new technology, to make life more environmentally friendly. Instead they only supply, olf-fashioned, often wood-chip type furnishing.

Still I installed an induction hob anyway, I just will have a problem finding an oven that fits into the space below the worktop.

I have a space of 68.5 cm, which is too short for a double oven and too big for a single one. My landlord doesn’t care.

It’s a similar story with energy provision in homes via standard electricity and gas central heating systems, all provided by landlords to tenants.

Social landlords do not by default instal solar energy panels on the roofs of their buildings, they do not yet provide plans to change heating use to underground heating extraction.

The u-turn

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that all who can should go back to work but walk, cycle or use cars and avoid public transport.

All that caution about carbon emissions has been thrown to the wind for the sake of personal breathing space whilst in a car.

It’s all about direct transmissions; the government is not concerned about long-term health effects.

I remember when my kids went to Primary. In Primary, kids often get sick, the younger the more sick they got because they caught all type of germs from each other. Yet teachers preached day in and day out that the 100% attendance is very important for children’s education and ability to achieve good grades.

Now Jeremy Corbyn warns that it is not safe to get back to work and especially schooling because transmissions are rife.

The only difference is that the childhood illnesses could not be caught my teachers but Corona can.

Is there anybody making any sense?

First we were told that the government will use existing health apps to monitor the spread and potential infection risk whilst yesterday I got an email from my Covid-19 app that they have to cease operation unless they get voluntary donations to continue.

The new rule from Wednesday people who usually live together can sunbathe, play games and go on outings, using cars together. Who is going to check whether the people usually live together if enforcers are faced with lots of groups of people. A lot of people flat-share these days.

It is obviously discriminating to only allow those who have cars to travel for leisure whilst public transport is off limits but to those working.

It’s almost back to normal with the excepton of children not being allowed to school. This knock-on effect stops many people from going to work. Also I’ve heard little about sports clubs and events and training in clubs and gyms and pools.

Betterment

Aaron_Hotchner_(Criminal_Minds)

By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use,

So Agent Hotchner argued that he rather sees serial killers locked up for life to show how they are a failure rather than have them put to death, so that they can’t think they won and go down in glorious death.

But then he resigns, citing his and his child’s safety because some serial killers, many of which make up state penitentiaries, conspired to frame him and reported him to the CIA who sent SWAT teams round to arrest him on the basis of a convicted serial killer giving information to the CIA about Agent Hotchners apparent misgivings. All of the data was forged by the convicts but the CIA had to arrest the FBI agent on the strenght of the lifers evidence.

One could argue, if you put on the death penalty then the totally deprived individuals who committed such heinous crimes could no longer cause any harm to the living.

What is the point in fighting crime and putting criminals behind bars if those sentenced can then use electronic communications and friends on the outside to murder retired agents, steal their identification badges, pretend to be from the bureau and commit further crimes like murder?

You can’t make any progress if those sentenced do not improve and do not show any betterment but only use their time to cause more damage to law enforcement and civilians.

Serial killers are the most depraved type of human beings. If you watch Criminal Minds, it is completely off the chart how reprived those individuals are. I do not know whether the material on Criminal Minds was taken from real cases or not. But if anybody who lives in normal society can detach themselves so far from reality and our laws as to murder others without any care for social norms, are they really able to ever improve or are they so damaged that they are no longer able to learn?

On the other hand you could argue, just do not believe a criminal convict without any doubt of its merit. Should the CIA have taken the word of a convicted mass murderer to arrest an FBI agent?

In the film the whole block of mass killers staged a mass breakout. Making agents have to re-capture at least 9 extemely dangerous mass murderers.

Considering that these criminals cause severe danger to the private lives of agents, it is not in the interest of human kind to allow those convicted to conspire to undermine society further once in jail.

It all depends on quantity, you may be able to keep a few depraved criminals in jail but if you got a lot, they can cause real damage by the sheer volume of their support systems and they can bring society to the abyss.

 

Lutheran tactics

xr-closedforgood

Picture taken from Extinction Rebellion Facebook page. This publication does not mean that I support this activity.

When Martin Luther nailed his thesis’ on the door of the Gutenberg Church in 1517, it meant a revolution was about to start in the church. The posters reading ‘Closed for Good’ plastered by Extinction Rebellion on businesses doors are not so different. This relationship in methods is probably one reason to the fact that our local Church of England Pastor strongly supports Extinction Rebellion and makes his church available to them for meetings and helps to disrupt local traffic at the nearby junction.

One of the XR hashtags also is very similar that John McDonnell wrote Another World is possible, a Manifesto for the 21st. Century.

No wonder the Labour Party has made a pact with Extinction Rebellion to turn over the power politically.

I am wondering whether this is approriate to associate Climate change with political direction.

Climate Change action is used as political pressure point.

Obviously the current Lockdown measures have significantly reduced carbon emissions around the world and especially in London, so how appropriate is that activity.

Considering that production methods are a matter of scientific research, and results of implementation, it seems trivial to hang a protest movement on this.

The negativity of Extinction Rebellion is outweighing all the positive impacts they could have. Show me how much leeway there is being made to implement new production methods, heating methods to change our central heating systems from using gas to different sources of heat, would be much more beneficial to us.

I could not see Labour opposing classic producton methods for the sake of the environment in the past. In Fact Labour always supported everything as long as jobs were saved.

 

TV ads instead of demos

Whilst Extinction Rebellion are trying to sell us their story, they do so by stopping traffic, apologetic, no less, they cause a disturbance.

They say, they need to do this, to make us aware of the climate agenda.

But, what about taking out a TV ad instead. You cannot reach more people than with a TV ad. XR got lots of money, they have extremely rich sponsors, so TV ads, should be affordable for them.

And as it is such a good cause, ITV or other commercial channels may even chip in and half the price?

Apparently the Chief Medical officer, constantly appears in between our favourite program to remind us of corona Virus dangers, he wouldn’t dream stopping traffic to remind a few drivers of the dangers.

Obviously XR want to use the issue to radicalise ‘rebel’s, teach them how to interrupt and feel good about it. They use and abuse us to train political resistance.

I support if it helps the climate

Doesn’t make much sense for the purpose of fighting this virus, the measures, the government comes up with but it helps a lot in reducing carbon emissions, with flights cancelled and other energy consuming activities reduced.

So, I do support. I am not even remotely ill and I am not scared about getting ill. I think Corona virus is just ane excuse to restrict people’s civil liberties.

But, if the government said, they want people to restrict moving for the sake of the climate, there would be an uproar, but if the government says, they have to restrict movments to stop them from getting a deadly illness, they gladly do so.

What a double whammy.Obviously also all the money people in the world are mostly old, so telling them, they are in danger of catching a deadly illness if they go out, will keep them supple and convinced.

non-sensical advice

I’m listening to the daily briefings of no 10 about corona virus, which incidentally have a NHS placard in front of them.

People are advised not to go to clubs, pubs, theatres and music venues etc, but those venues have not been asked to close. Without closure orders, they have no financial protection. So there you are, you supporters of the free market economy, there is no protection from those who promote your freedom to open a business but who are asking punters not to go there; when push comes to shove heh.

Sports events to take place behind closed doors. No mass gatherings. But, do go to a supermarket and find hundreds happily spending at least 1 hour in close proximity to empty the shelves of all the goods that are there. See this video from the outside of a local Lidl store.

I am happily not getting paranoid about the Corona virus. It is out there and it will be going around and around and we can have that hysteria each year and bring society and all we know to a stop. What is the point of that?

The fgure that 250.000 could die from Corona Virus is unrealistic. What would be realistic would be the figures calculated to die from earth warming instead.

Let us have proper information because so far more people have died from normal flu lasat year than from Corona virus this year.

70-year olds, refuse age-discrimination

Hopefully some 70 year olds will fight this government’s blatant attempt to introduce age-discrimination and make it legal to stop all 70 year olds from leaving their homes.

It’s totally illegal now to discriminate because of age, so why should Corona Virus pave the way for the Conservatives to find a way to break the anti-discrimination policies we have today.

 

trees as weapons

trees can be a force for good or for bad

As a good force they capture carbon and keep it in the wood they produce. For that to happen a tree has to be 20 – 30 years old and not be allowed to rot be destroyed otherwise.

A bad side-effect of trees can be that they can destroy buildings either with their roots (subsidance) or branches if they are too near to buildings.

Remember Zac Goldsmith, former Tory Mayoral candidate, he wanted to tear down council estates and replace them with newer private buildings.

The government has now promised to plant thousands of new trees and people have to watch out that they do not use them to destroy existing council homes.

On our estate, Tower Hamlets Homes has planted two large tree species, Silver Birches, which reach a height of about 15 meters and get huge crowns, very near 2 council houses, in fact within 3 meters of the building. Tree saplings are allowed to sprout along the whole length of the building. Those trees should be planted 10 meters away from a building.

Not only will these trees take away all light from residents, they will also destroy the guttering and external decorations of the buildings and their roots will cause subsidence as our summers get dryer each year.

_99859938_mixmayanpic.png

Picture copied from a BBC article originator WildBlue Media, channel 4

We are not supposed to accept trees just because there is a hysteria about earth warming and a climate emergency. We do not want our homes to look like that do we? Down the line our culture can disappear under trees. Good for the planet though.

Council estate residents have to be alert to the fact that some councils may plant trees to near to council buildings to destroy them, so they have an excuse to tear them down. If you have residents associations who are tree huggers mainly you cannot rely on them to do something about it.

Our homes are the priority. We do need trees to support us, we need to plant them in appropriate locations.

 

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,791 hits