I bought a new oil boiler 2 years ago that recirculates exhaust gases and vapourises the fuel at ignition point so that it burns much more efficiently with a blue flame rather than the yellow flame used in other boilers. It was around the same price as boilers using the old technology too so it seemed a no brainer. I'd say I've reduced my oil use by 10% a year which I'm pretty happy with. I don't really know why other manufacturers aren't following suit. My boiler is made by a South Korean company
You should see the ones in the US that are directly linked to these wood pellet manufacturing plants. Whole towns and villages with rising asthma cases. People who are in their 60s suddenly suffering from Asthma etc! All because of the green agenda and the vast majority of these US companies' product is sent to the UK and EU to collect the subsidies.........but you're not allowed to question this stuff or you get closed down and called a denier. Its just this millenium's racket. https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-biomass-energy-invs/ Electric cars will probably be the next one although it would need a bit more science that just Rowan Atkinson complaining. Wind Turbines manufacture? Solar panels manufacture and disposal? I'm not implying there is anything real out there as bad as the wood pellets on these however I would not discount the possibility because a lot of stuff is hidden behind "good causes" and you are not allowed to question anything. Maybe it would be much better if people would just stop using cars so much? Maybe get the electricity wired up to a bike and get some fitness in to power the tellybox kill 2 birds with 1 stone there Need more than 1 bike? Have more kids and get them all at it. Another bird killed there, we need more kids.
I wish you would just say young males. The "fighting age" bit just ruins the argument and is un-necessary. The point is they are not "women an children." No idea who they are supposed to be fighting. If its their homeland authorities then the odds are not good tbh.
If it were true the money men win we wouldn't be in the Drax situation or the uber amounts of subsidy offered for certain stuff by the government. Its about who you know and who you are as always. If a "preferred partner" comes up with a guff idea but they are in the circle and favoured........they get the gig. It isn't about accountants and cost analysis. Its about back scratching and wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Mine is a council condensation boiler but quite new and no doubt not cheap seeing as it is a government bought one. I do what I always do and set it for 45°C for the tap and 55°C for the radiators. Why is the default setting so hot? Why don't they regulate manufacturers to set the default at lower and then if some 'irk' wants everything red hot they have to change it themselves? It must mean that most of these boilers are running red hot because people haven't changed them and of course from what I read the condensation bit won't work at higher temps and it is much less efficient.
I’ve seen it a few times, but believe it or not, the best portrayal of the Moor of Venice was none other than Lenny Henry. Absolutely mesmerising and totally compelling. Got my programme autographed by him too!
I didn't read past the "fighting age males" bit tbh. It makes me cringe every time I hear that. I think we can agree there is an overly high % of young men on these boats and if the point is that these are economic migrants and not asylum seekers then it doesn't need the whole "fighting age men" statement because that is kinda counter to the point being made. If fighting age needs to be added in as somehow a valid point then that surely means they are fleeing and are asylum seekers because they don't want to be forced to fight? or die? Its a silly phrase that contradicts the point being made.
I think they can be both an economic migrant and an asylum seeker, tbf! Yes, they come from countries where we have taken some part in war - for the most part - but also yes, England looks a nice place to go make some money. The only point I would make is that getting here costs thousands. A lot of these people come from very well off families, and can be trained lawyers and doctors. I have had several Iranian doctors drive me around in Ubers!
In entirely expected news the Treasury has already underestimated the number of children to be taken out of private education as a result of Labour’s school tax. Over 3,000 private school students have applied to join state schools between June and September this year, while 2,500 more will leave in January according to the Independent Schools Council. The Treasury’s costings said that only 3,000 would leave over the entire 2024/2025 period… So 183% of Labour’s estimate have already said they will go. The actual figures are set to be far higher. Maybe they shouldn’t have relied solely on a report written by the minister’s best man… Meanwhile every new primary school pupil in the state system will cost the taxpayer £4,265 and every new secondary pupil £5,525 – provided they can get a place at all in overrun state schools. (Spoiler alert: they can’t. New schools will have to be built, more teachers hired, etc.) Sounds like an extremely expensive mistake. Who could have guessed?
Technocrats be technocrats. Keep it in the circle. Not a lot to do with value for money or the actual science. Not sure how many of this lot would be masons though, but I guess you weren't actually meaning masons literally. Just "The new kings."
Pedro Sánchez of Spain is someone I would call a proper statesperson. He gets things done for the ordinary people like subsidising the cost of petrol.a few years ago, keeping the cost of public transport low, placing price límits in certain good ítems. And he has shown leadership in foreign policy re Palestinian statehood. And to that aiding the recovery of the Valencia región after last week's storms.
If I was a young man again and there were no prospects for me in my own country, I’d try my hand somewhere else, for sure. In fact I saw a lot of young English guys, mostly from northern industrial towns with high levels of unemployment, doing exactly that in Germany and France in the early 80s.
I don't think this part has much validity to the argument either tbh. Even though we can virtually say we have taken part in war in virtually every country of the world that shouldn't matter. Asylum is asylum and if it were a country we had not been at war with (lets say recently - past 30 years or so ) then they have valid cases for asylum.
For me, it’s the safety factor. These refugees have come from war torn countries. Who knows what they’ve been through? It’s absolutely insane to dump them in hotels right next to all girls schools. Absolute insanity. Not to mention how much this will cost. The burden on the taxpayer is enormous. Plus the town have been told the refugees will have access to private doctors. So not only are we all paying for them, they're jumping ahead of taxpayers in the queue to be treated. It’s absolutely ****ing insane that anyone can defend this. The government has lost its mind. Worst part is; they’re covering up all the negatives around it: Finally a Tory MP has found the courage to ask for data and statistics around welfare. Soon they’ll be forced to release the crime statistics to, and then **** really will hit the fan.
Like I said. Literally we could probably say we have been at war with most countries at some point in our history. My point is that it isn't a case of "we caused your stress, you are in, or Nope not our fault, you're out. So the war or (our fault) thing doesn't matter a jot. If someone is fleeing persecution in any country then they have a valid case for asylum, whether it was "our fault" or not. But it has to be done by legal avenues and not people passing through an innumerable amount of safe countries because they have decided that the UK is the country they want to live in. Wanting to live in the UK is not the same as seeking asylum. They could have applied for asylum in any of those countries they passed through. Is there an argument that we don't take "our fair share" of asylum seekers? Yes I think that is a viable argument but there are a lot of talking heads in the discussion that are not interested in reality about having a serious discussion about actual asylum seekers and prefer to disingenuously conflate illegal migration with genuine asylum seekers. I think if we could get past this stumbling block of dishonest politicians weaponising this (and many other) issue(s) then we could actually have a genuine discussion about whether we are really doing our fair share for people who are genuinely in fear for their lives and require safety. But when people have travelled from the Eastern border of Europe/EU to get to the French border then it is pretty obvious that people are actually (just) not seeking asylum. They could have applied at any point in their journey. They are seeking a life in the UK. And yes I would concede that of them some will have left their country genuinely seeking asylum but want it to be in the UK. I can also quite understand as pointed out above that if I were young I might like to move to a country for a better life but I'm pretty sure that would descend into Chaos numberswise if that were the policy and would make the current "overload" look like a drip in comparison. I'm not against us taking more genuine asylum seekers. Whether they apply from their own country or any of the safe countries they reach, and I'm not against any discussion on the subject of if we are really taking our fair share of asylum seekers. On the doctors/lawyers......Surely Doctors would be able to apply through legal routes and be fast-tracked in? Why are they driving ubers and not being signed up to the NHS? I hear they need people. We don't need any more lawyers though. lol
My God when did that idiot get in? He's the useless Spad that was advising Theresa May on policy and then became her chief of staff until she managed to lose her majority!! Bonkers. He is the guy that was behind the "dementia tax" policy!.
Labour senior advisor: “We can do to the farmers what Thatcher did to the miners. It’s an industry we could do without. We don’t need small farmers.”
