Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the
Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people
are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which
throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might
reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and
not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell
the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair wants to leave his mark on
history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss, Norfolk
- Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I need an
ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I don't have
an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence
and my London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph.
I have my NHS medical card, with its lengthy number, given
me at birth, my RAF service book with my Armed Forces number,
and a chit authorising me to wear a few gongs -including
a General Service Medal with Malaya bar, for fighting communist
terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they told me.
"I've also got various credit cards and
store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well
as the odd luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose
I'll have to be photographed and given another number, besides
my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a pension book;
it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the Government.
By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E. Harry Gumer,
Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants. With the courageous French
NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested
leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious
constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to
prevent derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland, they refuse
to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct'
answer. Sadly, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their
tune like a puppet on a string. With tactics such as these,
how can anyone really believe the EU has our interests at
heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily Mail, June1,
2005
Surely the French
result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on
a treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant.
Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail, June1,
2005
|
Britain has traditionally
been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU because
we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm
and regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to Treasury
figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion,
or £43.55 per head of population.
The French - the biggest
recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion
a year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
|
Tony
Blair should know that respect comes by example - from the
top. If a country's leader has no respect for the rule of
international law and no respect for the truth, how can
he expect anyone to have respect. Letter
from P.J.Atkinson, Ashford, Kent - Daily Mail, January 12,
2006
The
Chancellor's single greatest act of vandalism in almost
nine years in office has been his wanton destruction of
Britain's private retirement industry. By slapping a massive
tax on pension funds, now worth
£7.3billion a year, he has helped to turn
the best private retirement industry in Europe into a basket-case
in perpetual crisis. Together with the adoption of European
accounting rules - which make it much riskier to operate
a company pension scheme - hundreds of firms have shut their
final salary plans to new employees and slashed benefits
to existing staff. From
Allister Heath: "I've seen the future and its grey"
in THE SPECTATOR - April 15, 2006
Nine
years ago the British people were sold a fantasy of clean
and competent government of principle and honesty. Its shiny
wrappings stripped away, the product now reveals its true
nature: Personal greed, arrogance, incompetence, shamelessness,
rash warmongering and an inability to accept - as is clear
to almost everyone else - that it is time to go. Editorial
- The Mail on Sunday, May 28, 2006
|
July
18, 2007 (1509days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 3622 US - 159 UK - >1,000,000? civilians - 25 media
July
26, 2007 (1517 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 3643 US - 163 UK - >1,000,000? civilians - 25 media
This
site has had 
visitors
There
is too much spin in Renewables
The Grauniad Wednesday July 25, 2007 - Ian Sample,
science correspondent
Renewable energy projects will devour huge amounts
of land, warns researcher
·
Analyst argues wind farms and biofuels are not green
· Report's look at negative aspects aims to end 'taboo'
Large-scale
renewable energy projects will cause widespread environmental
damage by industrialising vast swathes of countryside, a leading
scientist claims today. The warning follows an analysis of the
amount of land that renewable energy resources, including wind
farms, biofuel crops and photovoltaic solar cells, require to
produce substantial amounts of power.
Jesse
Ausubel, a professor of environmental science and director of
the Human Environment programme at Rockefeller University in New
York, found that enormous stretches of countryside would have
to be converted into intensive farmland or developed with buildings
and access roads for renewable energy plants to make a significant
contribution to global energy demands.
Prof
Ausubel reached his conclusions by ranking renewable energies
according to the amount of power they produce for each square
metre of land. The assessment allows direct comparison between
different approaches, based on the impact they will have on the
surrounding landscape.
The
analysis showed that damming rivers to make use of hydroelectric
power was among the most harmful to the landscape, producing around
0.1 watts of power per square metre. The world's largest dam,
the Three Gorges power station on the Yangtze in China, stores
nearly 40bn cubic metres of water, submerging land that was previously
home to more than 1 million people.
Biofuel
crops and wind energy fared better in the study, with both generating
around 1.2w to a square metre. Leading the renewable energy sources
were photovoltaic solar cells, which use sunlight to create electricity,
at around six to seven watts to a square metre.
Prof
Ausubel investigated how much land renewable energies would need
to provide electricity for large populations and compared them
to output from nuclear power stations.
In
one example he showed that damming rainfall and flooding the entire
Canadian province of Ontario would generate hydroelectric power
equivalent to 80% of that produced by the country's 25 nuclear
power plants.
Another
calculation revealed that to meet US energy demands for 2005 with
wind power would require constant winds blowing onto wind farms
covering more than 780,000 square kilometres of land, the area
of Texas and Louisiana combined. A comparison of solar energy
with nuclear found that a hectare of photovoltaic cells was needed
to produce the same amount of power as one litre of fuel in the
core of a nuclear reactor.
The
report breaks what Prof Ausubel calls the "taboo of talking
about the strong negative aspects of renewables", by focusing
on examples that highlight their limitations. "When most
people think of renewables and their impact, they're mistaking
pleasant landscaping with what would be a massive industrial transformation
of the landscape," he said.
"A
fundamental credo of being green is that you cause minimal interference
with the landscape. We should be farming less land, logging less
forest and trawling less ocean - disturbing the landscape less
and sparing land for nature. But all of these renewable sources
of energy are incredibly invasive and aggressive with regard to
nature. Renewables may be renewable, but they are not green,"
he added.
The
report, which appears in the International Journal of Nuclear
Governance, Economy and Ecology today, also criticises plans for
widespread farming of biofuels. With current technology, Prof
Ausubel estimates that one to two hectares of land would be needed
to produce fuel for each of the world's 700m cars and other motor
vehicles. "From an environmental point of view the biofuels
business is a madness," he said.
Prof
Ausubel said that despite technical and political concerns, nuclear
power plants still ranked as the most environmentally-friendly
for large conurbations. "The good news about nuclear is that
over the past 50 years all of the forms of waste storage seem
to have worked."
Power
outouts compared
Dams
Hydroelectric energy is the least efficient way of using land
to produce power. One square metre on average produces 0.1 watts.
Biofuels
A generator burning biomass requires crops from 250,000 hectares
to match the electricity output of a nuclear power station.
Wind
energy
Wind farms generate around 1.2 watts for every square metre of
land.
Solar
power
Photovoltaic cells covering an area of 150,000 square kilometres
would be needed to meet US electricity needs for a year. To power
New York city would take 12,000 square kilometres, about the size
of Connecticut
Useful
tools ; Carbon offset calculator
Useful
links Energy Saving Trust -
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/
If you have suggestions
for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked
to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
