Due to a change in personal circumstances, I shall no longer have time for Scooploop. Please PM me if you are interested. I'll choose based on the member's record.

I'll cancel the new loop, which wouldn't have been possible in the near future anyway, as my contact is no longer doing work for Scooploop.

In the latest instalment of the “can’t-make-this-up” contest in global politics and diplomacy, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In other words, the person currently presiding over the genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip has proposed that the world’s top peacemaking prize be awarded to the primary enabler of that genocide – the man who in March announced that he was “sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job” in Gaza. That “everything” has entailed billions of dollars in lethal weaponry and other assistance.

From October 2023 to the present, nearly 60,000 Palestinians have officially been slaughtered in the diminutive territory, although the true death toll is no doubt far higher considering the surplus of bodies lost under the pervasive rubble. More than 700 Palestinians have been killed in recent weeks while seeking food at aid distribution sites run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an organisation backed by both the US and Israel.

Since resuming office in January, Trump has also managed plenty of do-it-yourself activity of a decidedly unpeaceful nature, such as wantonly bombing civilians in Yemen and illegally attacking Iran.

Indeed, it is a wonder that media outlets have managed to report on Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize nomination with a straight face. CNN, for example, notes that “the award has become Trump’s ultimate fixation, one he says is well deserved for his efforts to end conflicts around the globe”. The president was informed of his nomination on Monday, when Netanyahu showed up for dinner at the White House as part of his third visit to Washington this year.

Thanking Netanyahu for the honour, Trump remarked: “Wow … Coming from you, in particular, this is very meaningful.”

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czey1y6x6zzo?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-gb

www.rawstory.com/trump-presidency-2672500111/

"The book which the reader has before him at this moment is, from one end to the other, in its entirety and details ... a progress from evil to good, from injustice to justice, from falsehood to truth, from night to day, from appetite to conscience, from corruption to life; from bestiality to duty, from hell to heaven, from nothingness to God."

Donald Trump has just seen the musical performed at the Kennedy Arts Centre.

Do you think he's lost touch with reality?

Stir and repeat...

Donald Trump calls Elon Musk crazy, he says US President is in Epstein files.

The world grabs popcorn.

Are you sitting comfortably?

Your thoughts?

Is anyone persuaded by David Lammy’s speech 10 days ago on the scenes of genocide live streamed into our homes every day for the last 20 months or do you think they’re insincere and hollow words in the face of public outrage and threats by International courts?

Labour’s windfall tax on oil and gas producers will leave 1.5bn barrels of oil and gas stuck in abandoned North Sea oil wells, according to new analysis of the levy’s impact.

The predicted output between now and 2050 has fallen 40pc from 3.6bn barrels of oil equivalent to just 2.1bn barrels, according to a report from investment bank Stifel.

The findings are based on data supplied by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), the Government’s oil and gas regulator.

The slump in expected output comes after a surge in the number of companies abandoning productive wells, following Rachel Reeves’s decision to extend the tax on oil and gas profits to 78pc. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has also banned new drilling.

Christopher Wheaton, a Stifel analyst, warned that the tax take from oil and gas was also set to plummet, partly because of declining production volumes but also because the price of oil has fallen so far that there is no longer a windfall to tax.

The report said: “The UK North Sea industry is being destroyed by taxes that are too high, taxes which threaten energy security, jobs, investment and economic growth.

“The impact of lower investment and production is already being felt through job losses, lower tax receipts and more energy imports.

“The Office for Budget Responsibility’s current forecast for North Sea tax receipts to 2030 is £10bn too high due to declining production and lower energy prices.”

Labour’s windfall tax on oil and gas producers will leave 1.5bn barrels of oil and gas stuck in abandoned North Sea oil wells, according to new analysis of the levy’s impact.

The predicted output between now and 2050 has fallen 40pc from 3.6bn barrels of oil equivalent to just 2.1bn barrels, according to a report from investment bank Stifel.

The findings are based on data supplied by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), the Government’s oil and gas regulator.

The slump in expected output comes after a surge in the number of companies abandoning productive wells, following Rachel Reeves’s decision to extend the tax on oil and gas profits to 78pc. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has also banned new drilling.

Christopher Wheaton, a Stifel analyst, warned that the tax take from oil and gas was also set to plummet, partly because of declining production volumes but also because the price of oil has fallen so far that there is no longer a windfall to tax.

The report said: “The UK North Sea industry is being destroyed by taxes that are too high, taxes which threaten energy security, jobs, investment and economic growth.

“The impact of lower investment and production is already being felt through job losses, lower tax receipts and more energy imports.

“The Office for Budget Responsibility’s current forecast for North Sea tax receipts to 2030 is £10bn too high due to declining production and lower energy prices.”

The reduction has largely been driven by natural decline but experts have warned that recent tax raids on the sector have accelerated the North Sea basin’s demise.

The NSTA’s 2023 production forecasts said that the UK would produce oil and gas equivalent to 46m tonnes of oil in 2028. But its latest forecasts, just issued, downgrade that to 40m tonnes, falling further to 33m tonnes in 2030.

By 2040, the NSTA predicts the UK will be producing just 9m tonnes of oil and 4bn cubic metres of gas – way below what the country will still need by then, meaning more imports.

The fresh forecasts suggest the windfall tax, or Energy Profits Levy, has roughly doubled the rate of decline.

Robin Allan, the chairman of Brindex, an offshore industry trade body, said: “An accelerated decline of North Sea output will see UK dependency on imports reach more than 85pc by 2030. The windfall tax is self-defeating and it should be removed.”

Offshore operators say the tax is so high that there is now more incentive to decommission productive wells and claim the associated tax rebates than to expand production.

Serica, one of the largest UK operators, separately warned on Thursday that Ms Reeves’s windfall tax and Mr Miliband’s ban on new exploration was killing off the UK industry.

David Latin, Serica’s chairman, said: “The impact of the inappropriate fiscal environment, and the years of uncertainty, is taking a heavy toll. UK production fell 5pc in 2024, drilling activity is at a record low, 10,000 jobs have been lost and companies continue to exit the UK North Sea.

“All of this will reduce tax receipts going forward and, given demand which will not go away any time soon, lost production will have to be imported – imports which are worse for the environment since they involve significantly increased emissions.”


To quote Billy Bunter - "Oh Lor!"

Here to turn bold ideas into reality

We help governments and leaders get things done. We do it by advising on strategy, policy and delivery, unlocking the power of technology across all three. As a not-for-profit, we can work in the most challenging contexts and on the most transformative projects because our focus is on leaders rather than profits.

And as a non-partisan organisation, we can bring the best of our expertise to leaders who want to translate their ambition into meaningful action for their people.

Private Eye commented on a recent TBI publication as follows.

SEAN had been passed between foster homes and relatives eight times before being returned to his violent father just before the pandemic. During the last lockdown, neighbours called police after hearing screaming, not for the first time, and he was rushed to hospital. His face was black and blue, his ears bleeding. Medics counted 63 different injuries. He was four.

Now eight, he has been undergoing intensive therapy to help him and his loving adoptive parents learn how to best manage his complex trauma, which often explodes into violence. But six weeks ago, that therapy stopped suddenly when the government failed to automatically renew the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund, a lifeline which has, in the past decade, helped nearly 53,000 children and their families as they take on the burden of responsibility for those who have had the worst start in life.

Sean’s parents await a restart of the therapy following the government’s late announcement that it will continue. However, the amount per child has been cut by a minimum 40 percent, so even if they get through the coming weeks while councils complete a hefty backlog of stalled funding applications, all of which must be resubmitted, they are terrified of what the future might hold.

Sean’s adoptive father, Michael (names have been changed), said: “Sean started to unravel as soon as it stopped. His violence at home has increased and he has been hitting out at teachers and other children. He is not eating properly, he’s bouncing off the walls. It is impossible for people with regular families to understand the impact of early life trauma, neglect and abuse and just how vital this therapy is. He has worked so hard to get this far, it is frightening how quickly he has regressed. It is not overstating it to say that his life will be ruined without it and we may not survive as a family.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce399l1329lo

https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/05/19/trumps-dominant-ego-camouflages-cowardliness-and-cruelties/

Article by Ralph Nader, worth reading.

https://progressive.org/latest/murray-kempton-always-had-2025-05-16/

An old news item from 1990. Well worth a read and watch the embedded video.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/barbara-walters-donald-trump-1990-interview_n_68265096e4b02c37b4dfb9fe

Seems to be rattling his sabre once again.
https://metro.co.uk/2025/05/12/satellite-images-reveal-scale-russian-troop-build-up-along-finlands-border-23071508/

Has a recent post I read about Israel/Gaza in this loop been removed?

It is widely thought that the U.K. is in imminent danger of war with Russia. Senior members of the defence forces have stated that the U.K. is woefully ill prepared in both armaments and forces personnel. God help us if conscription needs to be implemented. I can just imagine youngsters being unable to hold a weapon because of a mobile phone glued to their ears.

An extremely dangerous conspiracy theorist.
THIS IS NOT HOW WE DO SCIENCE, EVER’
The Trump administration is manipulating government-sponsored research to get the answers it wants.
APRIL 24, 2025
One of the most notable things about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, a federal agency tasked with “improving the health, safety, and well-being of America”—is how confidently he distorts the basics of health, safety, and well-being.
In his short stint as health secretary, Kennedy has touted cod-liver oil as a valid measles treatment (it’s not), said that Americans are being “poisoned” by seed oils (they’re not), and claimed that “many” vaccines are not adequately safety-tested (they are). And he has readily cherry-picked and exaggerated findings to suit his own needs: “There’s a scientist at Harvard now who is curing schizophrenia with a carnivore diet,” he said at a press conference in March (it’s not a carnivore diet, and it’s not a cure).
Follow The Atlantic on Apple News
The secretary also seems to think he knows what causes autism, a topic that scientists have been looking into for decades without producing a simple, clear-cut result, M. Daniele Fallin, a genetic epidemiologist at Emory University, told me. Kennedy, however, is adamant that a series of new investigations by his department will reveal at least “some of the answers” by September. “And we will be able to eliminate those exposures,” he said at a recent Cabinet meeting.
Since its first days, the new Trump administration has clearly shown where it thinks scientific attention should not be focused: It has attempted to censor federal scientific data, cut billions in government spending on research, and compromised care for some of the world’s most at-risk populations. Now, as the nation’s leaders have begun to encourage inquiry into specific areas, they are signaling that they’re willing to not just slash and burn research that challenges their political ideology but to replace it with shoddy studies designed to support their goals, under the guise of scientific legitimacy.
Just last week, in a press conference discussing a new CDC report that described a continued rise in the prevalence of autism, Kennedy pledged to “follow the science no matter what it says.” And in an email, Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, told me that the administration’s intention is “to leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of America’s epidemic of chronic diseases and conditions.” But those statements seem at odds with Kennedy’s behavior.
Among scientists who study and treat autism, the consensus has long been that “there is no ‘one cause’” of autism, Neelkamal Soares, a developmental and behavioral pediatrician in Michigan, told me. Genetics are likely to play a role; researchers have also explored the possible contributions of factors such as parental age; labor and delivery conditions; and exposures to certain chemicals, medications, or infections during pregnancy. Experts also generally agree that much of the growing prevalence of autism can be attributed to increased awareness and diagnosis—an explanation that the CDC, an agency Kennedy oversees, cited in its report.
But at last week’s press conference, Kennedy dismissed that explanation as “a canard of epidemic denial.” He instead claimed, without citing any data, that autism rates soared after “industry” contaminated Americans with a “toxin,” and called genetics a “dead end” for future research. “Somebody made a profit by putting that environmental toxin into our air, our water, our medicines, our food,” he said. And he appears to be trying to bolster that viewpoint with what will now count as official government research—“a series of new studies,” he said, “to identify precisely what the environmental toxins are that are causing it.”
Kennedy did promise to look at all possible environmental factors “agnostically.” But several experts told me they’re worried that the secretary has at least one particular exposure in mind. For years, Kennedy has championed the debunked idea that childhood vaccinations cause autism. And in March, he reportedly tapped David Geier, a discredited health analyst who has long promoted the notion that vaccine ingredients cause autism, to lead an HHS study to once again search for a link between immunizations and the neurodevelopmental condition. Kennedy didn’t evoke vaccines when describing this new research, and since his confirmation as HHS secretary, he has been more sanguine—albeit inconsistently—about the benefits of shots. But vaccines have, for years, stood out in his rhetoric as “a very clear preconceived hypothesis,” Megan Pesch, a developmental and behavioral pediatrician at the University of Michigan, told me.
Kennedy, who has no scientific or medical training himself, also seems confused about what a scientifically rigorous investigation would entail—and how long it might take. During this month’s Cabinet meeting, he said that by September, HHS would complete “a massive research and testing effort involving hundreds of scientists from around the world.” At last week’s press conference, however, his comments suggested that HHS might rely heavily on AI and electronic-health-record data, which aren’t gathered uniformly, can depend on self-reporting, and cover only populations that interact with the health-care system. And Jay Bhattacharya, the new, Trump-appointed director of NIH, recently gave a presentation detailing the administration's plans to source data for these investigations from hospitals, pharmacies, wearable devices, and other private sources with limited reach.
That approach, experts told me, can’t provide enough evidence to definitively pinpoint autism’s cause, much less guide policy to eliminate it. “The chances of getting garbage are so high,” Catherine Lord, a clinical psychologist at UCLA’s Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, told me. Desai said that Kennedy had promised “an exhaustive examination of the underlying causes of autism,” which “naturally would include use of data points such as electronic health records, among other data sets,” and noted that the secretary is focused on fulfilling President Donald Trump’s directives “with the Gold Standard of Science.”
No matter which methodologies Kennedy chooses, his September deadline “is ridiculous,” Lord said. Even the job of assembling the expert task force to initiate such a project could go past September. And Bhattacharya has already suggested getting results could take longer. (When asked about the practicality of this timeline, Desai replied, “Would the preference be vague timelines and no commitments to address a matter of utmost concern for millions of Americans?”) One way to rigorously gather more data on autism’s causes would involve following a large, representative sample of the American population over time, tracking participants’ exposures, taking into account their genetic and health history, and monitoring whether any of them develop autism. The process would take years—and still may not yield causes as clear-cut or easy to “eliminate” as Kennedy seems to expect. But an administration that already knows the answers it wants doesn’t need years to find them.
Government-funded science has, to some extent, always been subject to the political priorities of leadership: The National Institutes of Health, for instance, is run by a political appointee. Trump and his allies, however, have already demonstrated that they are willing not just to set priorities, but to engage in science theater, with even more broad-reaching interference in the field of trans health.
Today's essential stories. In audio. Listen in The Atlantic app.
From the start, the new administration’s views on transgender health have been clear. Since January, Trump has issued executive orders denying the existence of gender and describing hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery for children as “maiming,” “sterilizing,” and “mutilation.” One order announced that the administration would not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another” and instructed federal agencies to end such procedures at government-funded institutions, leading hospitals and clinics across the country to pause gender-affirming care for young people. Through the NIH, the administration has also slashed funding from more than a hundred research grants involving trans people.
In place of this research, HHS is pursuing a pointed agenda to confirm the president’s statements. Last month, Matthew Memoli, the acting director of the NIH at the time, sent top agency officials a memo with instructions to urgently “fund research” into “regret and detransition following social transition as well as chemical and surgical mutilation of children and adults.” (In his email, Desai described the memo’s stipulations as “realigning taxpayer-funded research to align with the priorities of the American people.”) “This is very important to the President and the Secretary,” the memo read.
The outcomes of gender-affirming care do need further study across the age spectrum, experts told me. Scientists still don’t have a full sense of the long-term outcomes of transition on mental and physical health, or how to best tailor interventions to patients. (Extended use of certain hormones, for instance, could raise people’s risk of some cancers or cardiovascular complications.) More research is needed, in particular, on how best to support gender-diverse youth, a growing sector of the population. But the kinds of research that the Trump administration is pursuing won’t help clarify or alleviate those concerns. And of all the scientific questions that could be asked about trans health, “regret and detransition aren’t the major problems,” Arjee Restar, a social epidemiologist at Yale, told me: Studies have found that adults and adolescents are generally very satisfied with the outcomes of hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries, and that rates of regret following surgeries are about just 1 percent.
NIH officials found the memo’s directives appalling. “This is not how we do science, ever,” one of them, who requested anonymity out of concern for professional retribution, told me. “This is politicized research, exactly what we were always told we would never do.” In his memo, Memoli specified that studies into the outcomes of gender-affirming care should deploy “methods that don’t themselves subsidize or incentivize such practices as previous NIH studies have done.” (Desai pointed to a case in which an NIH-funded researcher cited politics to help explain her hesitation to publish a study with unfavorable results about puberty blockers.) But previous NIH studies have never “subsidized or incentivized” gender-affirming care, the NIH official told me. Rather, they followed the recipients of that care over time, and observed the results.
In contrast, Memoli’s memo unabashedly advertised the conclusion that the administration is pushing for: that gender-affirming care is harmful and regrettable. The directive also implicitly solicits researchers who “are following the administration’s example,” Logan S. Casey, the director of policy research for the Movement Advancement Project, an equality-focused think tank, told me—and potentially, for participants who might share those viewpoints as well. That makes it all the more likely that those projects will produce the skewed results the administration wants to see.
This is consistent with everything Trump and his allies have revealed about their views on science since January: that it is not a means to better understand objective reality, but a political weapon that they must guard against, or deploy themselves. In recent months, Kennedy has accused the expert committee that counsels the CDC on its nationwide vaccine recommendations of being in the pocket of vaccine manufacturers; the administration has also fired from HHS several scientists who were prominent leaders in the COVID-19 response, including a few closely affiliated with Anthony Fauci, whom Trump has ridiculed as a “disaster” and an idiot and Desai derided as one of many “demonstrably fallible ‘experts.’” Last week, administration officials also redirected two federal websites, once used to share information on COVID-19 tests, treatments, and vaccines, to a page promoting the idea that the coronavirus pandemic began as a lab leak, rather than Fauci’s “preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature.”
The causes of autism, the outcomes of gender-affirming care, and the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are all topics worthy of scientific investigation. But how questions are asked can influence the answers they yield—and directly affect the populations they’re asked about. The language in the NIH memo is “alarming and inflammatory,” Camie Nitzel, a psychologist who specializes in transgender and gender-diverse people, told me: It shows that the administration is pursuing these studies not from a place of genuine inquiry, but from prejudice. Disdain is coded into the administration’s methodology on autism, too: In his briefings on HHS’s new pursuits, Kennedy has repeatedly described autism as a scourge worse than COVID-19 that “destroys” families and children, and insinuated that it should be purged from the population. But the implication of both the administration’s statements and its proposed studies is that neither trans people nor autistic people should visibly exist in America. Science is now yet another tool that the government is using to disappear anyone it deems undesirable.

Where MAGA parents and grandparents admonish their sons/grandsons for their achievements. What sad people.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/harvard-acceptance-maga-grandparents-response_n_6806a994e4b052543c13a41a?ncid=APPLENEWS00001

Most people with half a brain understand that tariffs that are put in place on countries like China eventually costs the country that introduce them, ie the consumers, not the country where tariffs have been placed, but Trump believes the country he placed tariffs on does. You couldn’t make it up.

https://x.com/retroagent12/status/1910861833331937521?s=46

Obviously aimed at Trump went viral. Read the piece by Dan Rather.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dan-rather-donald-trump-turkish-proverb-facebook_n_67efe3b0e4b0d50ac8763c56

Trump has stated that the U.K. must agree to import chlorinated chicken from the US if it wants loosening the tariffs he has imposed. This will probably mean the U.K. accepting beef that’s been heavily treated with antibiotics. I’d rather become a vegan.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-tariffs-chlorinated-chicken-uk-b2726709.html

Where his allegiances lay. He has imposed tariffs on most of the world (including uninhabited islands: the clown), but guess who he has exempted from those tariffs? Russia and North Korea! What an obnoxious clown he is.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-map-live-putin-trump-exemption-peace-talks-b2726495.html

Again, has some explaining to do as does the U.K. government. James Kirby, a U.K. aid worker, along with two other British aid workers, was killed by an Israeli drone in April 2024. The family is asking for an enquiry but their questions have gone unanswered. Another war crime perpetrated by Benjamin Netanyahu.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/family-gaza-british-britons-israeli-b2725418.html

I doesn’t take a genius to realise that Trump’s statement regarding America needing Greenland for strategic security reasons is nothing more than utter nonsense. It’s all about the untapped minerals that he wants to get his hands on.
Of course there are major geopolitical consequences that JD Vance has stated that won't worry the Trump administration.
Things Trump should ponder on.
If the United States were to forcibly take over Greenland, the ramifications would be severe and far-reaching, both geopolitically and economically.
Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, which is a NATO member. A U.S. invasion or forceful annexation would likely trigger a military response from Denmark and its allies. Since NATO’s Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, this could spark a wider conflict.
European Union Sanctions: The EU (which Denmark is a member of) would likely impose harsh sanctions on the U.S., damaging trade and economic relations.
Global Condemnation: The U.S. would face international isolation, potentially leading to sanctions from the UN and economic retaliation from global powers like China and Russia.
Trade Disruptions: A military takeover could lead to boycotts and trade restrictions, affecting the U.S. economy.
Occupying Greenland would require extensive military investment to secure the territory, leading to massive expenditures.
Resource Control vs. Viability: While Greenland has valuable rare earth minerals and untapped resources, forcibly acquiring them would likely result in long-term legal battles and sabotage rather than economic gains.
Guerrilla Warfare & Resistance: Greenlanders may resist U.S. control, leading to prolonged unrest, insurgency, and the need for an occupying force.
Russian & Chinese Response: Both nations could see this as a precedent for military expansion, potentially escalating global conflicts or increasing their presence in the Arctic.
Political Fallout: Such an act would likely be seen as an extreme violation of international law, leading to internal political turmoil, protests, and potential impeachment efforts.
Financial Strain: The cost of war, occupation, and maintaining Greenland would likely lead to increased national debt and economic instability.
This next statement could have far reaching consequences across the globe.
If the U.S. takes Greenland by force, other countries might use this as justification for their own territorial ambitions—Russia in Ukraine, China in Taiwan, or other disputed regions. This could lead to a breakdown of international norms and increased global instability.

Politicians creaming off funds.
https://news.sky.com/story/flatplan-13339142

Disastrous Greenland visit. He’s a walking blot on democracy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/31/trump-greenland-us-morally-wrong-strategy-disastrous?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-5

Benjamin Netanyahu has something to hide.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/26/bbc-jeremy-bowen-accuses-israel-blocking-journalists-gaza

Thames Water was privatised in 1989 with no debt.
Since then it’s racked up £14.7 billion in debt at the same time as paying out £10.4 billion to its shareholders.
If that's not a scam, I don't know what is!

Is beside himself as a Chinese company has developed an EV battery that can be charged almost as quick as filling a car with petrol/diesel. He’s on record throwing a tantrum because a foreign company has outstripped Tesla charging technology.
Read details below 👇
https://www.livescience.com/technology/electric-vehicles/chinas-superfast-charging-technology-is-twice-as-fast-as-teslas-fully-recharging-evs-in-just-6-minutes?utm_term=2CE1F50D-49A4-4D4C-B519-73E277B430D1&lrh=6a9af0f0198b51716c2248b474d9ae31d0e344a97737aa2f12cfd453f9173851&utm_campaign=368B3745-DDE0-4A69-A2E8-62503D85375D&utm_medium=email&utm_content=46DB2265-9791-4BBB-8649-FCB4AEC82899&utm_source=SmartBrief

As a retired electrician that has worked on HT power supplies, I’m extremely amazed at the misinformation that’s being spread elsewhere regarding the Hayes sub-station fire that brought Heathrow to a standstill. People have been saying that the backup generators weren’t operational. This is nonsense! The backup generators did kick in as well as uninterruptible power supplies (look it up) but there is no way they could fully power an airport the size of Heathrow which draws enough voltage to power a small city. So who should be blamed? Obviously, it’s the power network companies that should have upgraded/renewed/added high capacity sub-stations to prop up an aging electrical supply network.
People shouldn’t take any notice of certain MPs jumping on a dodgy bandwagon when it obvious they have no knowledge of electrical distribution systems.

know something we don’t?
https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/concerns-grow-as-france-issues-survival-manual-to-prepare-citizens-for-invasion/

That the Trump administration (DOGE in particular) has erased valuable information regarding children abducted by Putins forces.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-ukraine-children-russia-war-kidnapping-evidence-b2717730.html

www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/uk-based-charity-slams-downing-street-for-rejecting-foreign-secretarys-comments-on-israel-s-gaza-attacks/3513627

Your thoughts?

A danger to the world and his own country. He’s wrecking the US economy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/14/donald-trump-crashing-us-economy-fake-news

MPs received more than £2.7m in donations from individuals and companies directly or indirectly connected to the private healthcare sector between 2021 and 2023
More than half (£1.4m) of the donations came from companies with investments in the private healthcare sector such as asset management firms.
A tenth of the donation (£312,204) came from companies that already provide services to the NHS.
More than £230,000 was donated to MPs from directors of companies that have investments in the private healthcare sector.
Lobbyists with private healthcare clients donated more than £110,000 to MPs.

A blue whale's anus can stretch to approximately 3 and a half feet, making it the second largest areshole on the planet, after Donald Trump.

Zelensky/Trump
https://x.com/PierreCol/status/1895734038981472635

The meeting between Trump/Zelensky/Vance turned into the most disgraceful put down by a US President and VP. Also, it’s come to light that TASS, the Russian state news agency, was allowed into the White House for the meeting, whereas CNN and AP (Associated Press) were barred. Make of that what you will folks.