Blog

Started May 8th 2024, updated March 26 2024 Quick start with <a data-mce-href="https://veo.uk/QE_for_the_Rest_of_Us.mp3" href="https://veo.uk/QE_for_the_Rest_of_Us.mp3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">An AI analysis and commentary....</a> Conjuring money from nowhere means typing a line on a Treasury computer, and praying the markets don't object too much and crucify your country's currency exchange rate.It is of course the same as a company issuing more shares - without any covering payment or assets - and so dilutes the worth of each issued share accordingly. The UK's round of QE after the 2008 banking crash was in order to prevent banks going bust after the casino asset bubble of the Blair /Brown Labour government.&nbsp;Not only had the government run out of other people's money to spend, the banks were completely over committed to loans to buy those bubble assets and RBS was apparently hours from failure.So the government invented money with which to bale out RBS and the rest, and hoped that everyone accepted that the alternative was just too horrible to contemplate and that dissent would remain muted. Part of this handout was sweetened for the public with dishonest promises that banks would start to lend to small businesses, and the economy would wake up again. All parties remained quiet about this ultimate evidence of Labour's economic failure because they did not want to inherit a completely destabilised economy - and frankly, all were guilty of stoking the stupidity that charged on with the "fairy money" policies that took a reasonably healthy 1997 economy and turned it into a basket case as the result of ruthlessly spending other people's money in order to buy three elections.<figure id="figure-rpuz3bcsdklwcd5t6s"><iframe id="rpuz3bcsdklwcd5t6s" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GnNAtAsueNg" class="w-full bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" allowfullscreen="" data-url="https://youtube.com/shorts/GnNAtAsueNg" data-corners="default" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GnNAtAsueNg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></iframe></figure>The banks took every penny and used it to shore up their catastrophic balance sheets, and hardly any was loaned to businesses to create economic activity. Ironically, banks argued that the businesses were looking like bad risks - thanks to the economic climate brought about by their willingness to lend to bubble assets over the previous 13 years. And when failures occurred in companies starved of capital, they said "told you so". But that's bankers for you."A Banker is someone who will lend you an umbrella whe the sun is shining, and ask for it back the moment a cloud appearson the horizon."So the net effect was no economic stimulus, just bankers able to look forward to fatter pensions for longer? Plus ça change, more of the same. So then, how about something truly radical? I offer you ...<h2>"QE for the rest of us" - it's the way ahead.</h2>I devised this scheme a while ago and last updated in July 23. Some of the stats may have changed, but when you are splashing around in trillions, a lot can be handily mopped up in rounding errors. In a nutshell: every UK citizen who has been identified with an email address and exists on the HRMC database - and is over the age of 35 who has been resident for more than 20 years - will get a one-off "payment" of £100,000. That's 37 million people, so a modest £3.7 trillion. Just About twice the market capitalistion of one US company - Apple...Which doesn't sound a lot if you say it quickly, does it?Further perspective can be applied when you consider that ~$5 trillion is traded globally on Forex. The LSE daily trade volume is roughly £4bn, and approximately 2,494 companies are listed on the London Stock Exchange with a total market value of £3.8 trillion. The value of all homes in Britain still grew by £Loads until 2022 which saw the first slow down in house price inflation for a while - bringing the combined total of residential property stock to £7+ trillion.The devil is of course in the detail. Those receiving the cash will need to pay off all their personal debt first - in fact, this will need to be deducted at source to avoid temptation or "moral hazard" as stuffy economists like to call it. Outstanding personal debt stood at £1.7 trillion at the end of February 2022, but our "people's QE" will put £2 trillion into the active economy, and with all that debt paid off, the banks will be so well funded that they can be fundamentally reorganised and returned to their proper roles as servants of the people and their businesses - and maybe told to open branches with devolved local responsibility once again.We might as well take the opportunity to re-establish the Post Office and a UK-owned logistics industry properly once again, and tell them to devise a better PayPal. &nbsp;Why let Fedex, UPS and TNT have it all to themselves now the world of commerce is almost entirely about fully integrated payment/warehouse/delivery coordination?Those prudent folks who have been hammered recently with negligible interest rates on savings (especially the elderly) will be big beneficiaries. The age break of 35 means that families are going to be big beneficiaries, and will be able to fund their kids' long term education. However, all private education would have to be brought into a new (seriously upgraded) state system, and operated on merit, not ability to pay.The 16m people over 60 will be encouraged and assisted to invest their windfall in establishing and supporting family businesses -which also marks the opportunity to address the sacred cows of the NHS and deal with the cost implications of the elderly. As part of the duty of the "âgées riche", these folks can now be very reasonably expected to contribute in some way to their retirement care costs. Maybe some form of "health bond"?The inflationary pressures of this process will be unprecedented, but I think the people of the UK are an adventurous lot, and given the alternatives at this time, ready to accept the rules necessary to make this work. Brace yourselves.Eeek! &nbsp;Of course the value of £ will slide - at least initially-&nbsp; until the brilliance of this plan emerges - so we had better get fracking to keep energy costs under control. &nbsp;UK gas reserves are now estimated to be at least 1.3-4 trillion cubic feet. At $35 per cubic metre in 2013 that was $9 trillion, or £6 trillion. Anthropogenic climate change is being steadily debunked, and you can find a lot of evidence accumulating that suggests Net Zero is another carefully engineering hoax from the folks that brought us various other psyops including bat viruses and elections decided by minority votes.In 2022 the price has rocketed to $85+ pcm and the value of a "modest" UK shale gas reserve is still going to be comfortably in the range of $10tr+A recent LSE report gives a broader view. But the bottom line remains that we have been foolish not to exploit this. Maybe Putin's KGB has helped the anti-frackers and XR fanatics to disrupt the industry to help ensure the UK is crippled by Russain energy politics? It seems more than plausible in the light of <a data-mce-href="https://youtu.be/QfvXwuZ-bok" href="https://youtu.be/QfvXwuZ-bok" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Yuri Besmenov's advice</a> and the consequences of the Ukraine invasion. Maybe the Ukraine adventure has been turned around into a&nbsp; handy way for Russia to sharpen up its sloppy act, take the measure of West and get ready to take on Nato. And crucially to work out where to cut its losses and not bother to go head to head. They probably listened to Yuri Bezmenov, even if we don't.&nbsp;So it seems arguable that this "QE for the rest of us" project has more than adequate "asset backing".But just think of the excitement and anticipation that such a bold strategy will engender - and it's up to politicians to harness the momentum and good will. Which may be the fatal flaw in the plan, since our present breed of "bubble bred" politicians and civil servant advisers and experts does not seem to have a clue about building a good old-fashioned indigenous economy, instead preferring to smooze with the likes of Google, Facebook and Bill Gates. We just avoided becoming even deeper embroiled with Huawei and dependent on it for even more infrastructure; but it is fair to assume that is not a byte of data traverses UK backbone networks without being captured and shipped back to the PLA for inspection.And what about the envy factor from those who miss the cut for a personal QE payout? Very tricky. Many under 35s will be expected to benefit from their parents' windfalls. However, EVERYONE will benefit from a rejuvenated economy that will be the talk of the planet.&nbsp; Vote WOTE!Abuses will need to be carefully assessed and rules with severe penalties be devised for those who cheat the spirit of the plot. One obvious one will have to be VAT on luxury import purchases hiked to as much as 50% (especially from the EU) to discourage dissipating the opportunity with spending splurges. Maybe two classes of money are required - with the QE fund only being spendable/investable in the UK?The adoption of globalisation, sold by its slick Soros-backed advocates to gullible politicians has been a demonstrable economic failure - if not a disaster. The UK has no viable "new economy" behemoth to match Google, Apple, Facebook, eBay, Paypal, Twitter or Amazon; and doesn't even get adequate taxes on the profits - as the aforementioned contrive to keep profits offshore. So not a lot to lose, eh Rishi?The EU wouldn't like it? Of course it won't! Tough, &nbsp;Brussels will try and disrupt the UK as usual; Stutgart and Munich less so.The EU is now a colossal irrelevance that was contrived in an age before globalisation and pervasive networks. It provides handy markets for Germany and France in particular, but generally hangs like an energy compromised millstone around the neck of the world in 2022. Moreover, the EU Commission only appears to be a combined rest home and sinecure for the failed quangoistas and compliant politicians of the "bubble economy age" like Peter Mandelson, Chris Patten, Cathy Ashton, plus of course, Neil and Glenys Kinnock.And what if every other country likes what they see, and decides to follow suit? You know what, the US economy in the times of Clinton pretty much did what I am suggesting, but rather more "dishonestly". However, Clinton's great mortgage give-away ended up in the hands of manipulative bankers as toxic debt - and was largely handed to democrat voters who used it to buy over-valued property.Could everyone follow our blueprint to regenerate their home economies - suitably adapted to local conditions? As long as the "eased money" stayed within the local country economies, why not? To some extent, this is how a number of economies (eg Egypt) operate with a black market with a very different "unofficial" exchange rate for US$, and a tightly controlled local currency.Who would be the biggest losers from this scheme? Almost certainly the deeply vested interests of global economic manipulation that pull the levers behind the scenes (the so-called promoters of the New World Order) - and that are high on the list of targets of the anti-globalisation "occupy" protests.Betting the farm on delivering hydrogen fusion..?Countries with "honest" wealth funds invested in our diluted assets like Norway might have an irritated sense of "prodigal son" if the UK is allowed to get away with it. But most such energy based wealth funds have arisen from accidents of birth, and are controlled by assorted despots that we are presently obliged to be nice to. So we had better get fracking, and also hope that the LHC in Cern produces an answer to creating fusion energy for when fossil fuels run out in 40 years; and then we are all home free.However, all will soon enough understand the benefits for their investments in a UK economy growing at a healthy 10+%.But if this all goes horribly pear shaped, there is the one remaining option. HM the King seems to own copyright on his English Language. Can you imagine American IPR lawyers allowing anyone to get away with the type of breach copyright that HM has suffered all this while? Neither can I. US behemoth Getty Images try and charge anyone inadvertently using one of their &nbsp;images on a web site as much as £4k, so maybe I am underpricing this deal.Anyway, we'll charge the US $10 trillion in back royalties and penalties for having stolen (and mutilated) HM's intellectual property in 1776. &nbsp;In fact let's do that as well as the QE. In for a penny, in for £135000000000000. Comments and debate at the X account of <a data-mce-href="https://twitter.com/WoteUk" href="https://twitter.com/WoteUk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@wote.uk</a> please... PS The story of the €100 note..<figure id="figure-0t0xiybfglvy4u8la"><img id="0t0xiybfglvy4u8la" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1dyI6Wagwr67YHb0RgyrM4CBontWDTbTDlZd5hrvqgeA5EpZIETgKCHQo121u2Vy.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined% 50%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="Moolah" data-positionx="undefined%" data-positiony="50%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1dyI6Wagwr67YHb0RgyrM4CBontWDTbTDlZd5hrvqgeA5EpZIETgKCHQo121u2Vy.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined% 50%;"><figcaption class="body-normal text-gray-500 mt-2">Moolah</figcaption></figure>He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 Euro note on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one.The hotel proprietor takes the 100 Euro note and runs to pay his debt to the butcher.The Butcher takes the 100 Euro note, and runs to pay his debt to the pig farmer.The pig farmer takes the 100 Euro note, and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.The supplier of feed and fuel takes the 100 Euro note and runs to pay his debt to the town's hooker that in these hard times, gave her 'services' on credit.The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the 100 Euro note to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.The hotel proprietor then lays the 100 Euro note back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything.At that moment, the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, and takes his 100 Euro note after saying that he did not like any of the rooms, and leaves town.No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the British and US Governments have been doing business for many years." And Grok didn't completely crucify the idea... (<a href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/5SCcFnU9uUgh9jS1FDkkqIV6z" data-mce-href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/5SCcFnU9uUgh9jS1FDkkqIV6z">https://x.com/i/grok/share/5SCcFnU9uUgh9jS1FDkkqIV6z</a>) "The blog post "Money for Nothing: QE Made Easy" on wote.uk offers a simplified explanation of quantitative easing (QE), aiming to demystify a complex economic policy for a general audience. It frames QE as a mechanism where the Bank of England essentially "prints money" to buy government bonds, injecting cash into the economy to stimulate activity during downturns. The post uses an analogy of a tab at a bar to illustrate how QE allows banks to spend without immediate repayment, suggesting it’s a tool to keep the economic "party" going. It also touches on criticisms, like inflation risks and wealth inequality, but argues these are overstated or manageable.The explanation is accessible and captures the basic intent of QE—boosting liquidity when conventional monetary tools falter. It correctly notes that QE involves the central bank creating money to purchase assets, typically government bonds, from financial institutions, which then increases bank reserves and, theoretically, encourages lending. The bar tab analogy, while creative, oversimplifies the process by implying a casualness that doesn’t fully reflect the structured nature of QE transactions.However, the post has some shortcomings. It glosses over technical nuances, like the fact that QE isn’t "printing money" in the literal sense but rather an electronic expansion of central bank reserves—an asset swap, as some economists note. This swap shifts bonds (long-term assets) into reserves (liquid cash), influencing interest rates and financial conditions, but it’s not direct cash handouts. The claim that QE money "doesn’t need to be paid back" is partially misleading; while the central bank doesn’t demand repayment, the bonds it holds mature or are sold back eventually, affecting the money supply over time. The post’s dismissal of inflation risks also feels overly optimistic. Historical examples, like post-2008 QE rounds, show muted inflation in the UK, but context matters—weak demand and global factors played a role. In different conditions, flooding banks with reserves could spark price pressures, as critics warn. Similarly, the wealth inequality point—QE inflating asset prices and benefiting the rich—deserves more than a passing shrug, given evidence of rising property and stock values post-QE.Overall, it’s a decent primer for beginners, stripping QE down to its core without drowning in jargon. But it sacrifices precision for simplicity, which might leave readers with an incomplete picture. For a deeper dive, it could acknowledge the ongoing debates among economists about QE’s long-term efficacy and unintended consequences, rather than presenting it as a straightforward win. Still, for its purpose—making QE "easy"—it delivers a solid starting point."&nbsp;

Money for nothing: QE made easy!

And here is <a data-mce-href="https://veo.uk/UK_Fusion_Energy_A_Decade_of_Progress_Towards_Delivery.mp3" href="https://veo.uk/UK_Fusion_Energy_A_Decade_of_Progress_Towards_Delivery.mp3" target="_blank" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">a 24 minute studio discussion</a> of this topic &nbsp;that makes it more accessible for the casual browser .... https://veo.uk/UK_Fusion_Energy_A_Decade_of_Progress_Towards_Delivery.mp3Affordable Energy has been the defining challenge obstructing peace and progress over the past 100 years (and arguably for the whole of industrial revolution); yet the recent efforts to extricate mankind from the many gotchas arising have been piecemeal and far from "joined up" - or even thought-through. The interests of all those (corporate and political) that influence and control any aspect of energy creation and distribution have made it quite difficult at times to work out who is playing what games with science and truth, in order to mislead and remain on top of the heap.&nbsp; Compared to the prosaic thinking prevailing in generation and dsitribution, there was already a weird and wonderful distractiion from the unconventional work of Nikola Tesla - who was a visionary inventor whose ideas about energy creation and distribution set him apart from the more conventional approaches of Michael Faraday, Thomas Edison, and George Westinghouse. While Faraday laid the groundwork for electromagnetism, Edison focused on practical direct current (DC) systems, and Westinghouse championed alternating current (AC) for power distribution, Tesla pushed the boundaries further with radical concepts that often defied the incremental thinking of his peers.Tesla’s most distinctive contribution was his vision for wireless energy transmission. Unlike Edison’s DC-based systems, which required extensive wiring, or even Westinghouse’s AC grid, which still relied on physical infrastructure, Tesla proposed transmitting electrical energy through the air or the Earth itself, without wires. This stemmed from his experiments with high-frequency, high-voltage AC and his development of the Tesla coil, a resonant transformer capable of producing dramatic electrical discharges. He believed that energy could be sent over vast distances by leveraging the Earth’s natural conductivity and the atmosphere as a medium, effectively turning the planet into a giant conductor. His Wardenclyffe Tower project in the early 1900s was intended to demonstrate this, aiming to provide free, limitless energy to the world by tapping into what he called the "ambient medium" or the Earth’s resonant frequencies.Tesla also diverged in his approach to energy creation. While Faraday, Edison, and Westinghouse worked within the framework of generating electricity via mechanical means (e.g., dynamos driven by steam or water), Tesla speculated about harnessing energy directly from nature’s untapped reservoirs. He theorized about capturing cosmic rays, radiant energy from the sun, or even the Earth’s own electromagnetic field as inexhaustible power sources. In a 1891 lecture, he described "electricity derived from the energy of the universe," hinting at concepts that went beyond the chemical or mechanical processes of his contemporaries.&nbsp;What made Tesla an outlier was his rejection of the localized, profit-driven energy models of Edison and Westinghouse. Edison’s DC system was limited by distance and inefficiency, while Westinghouse’s AC, though more scalable, still tethered society to a centralized grid. Tesla’s dream was decentralized, almost utopian—energy as a universal right, freely available to all, unshackled from wires or monopolies. His famous statement, “Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world’s machinery without the need of coal, oil, or gas,” encapsulates this radical departure.However, Tesla’s ideas were often impractical or ahead of their time and seemed uncomfortably "whacky" to convenional physics. The physics of Faraday and Maxwell, which underpinned Edison and Westinghouse’s work, dealt with measurable, reproducible phenomena. Tesla’s theories—like the Earth as a resonant circuit or wireless power over global distances—lacked the engineering precision to be fully realized then, and some remain unproven or speculative today. His brilliance lay in his imagination, but it was his refusal to stay within the pragmatic confines of traditional physics that made him both a genius and an enigma compared to his peers. <h3>The Big challenge of the all-electric world</h3>...is storing electricity in anything as convenient as portable and-energy dense as a fossil fuel. Batteries have come a long way from lead acid accumulators, but they are still 10 years from being "convenient".&nbsp;&nbsp;Compared to the ignorance and noise around the usual net-zero nonsense - from farting cows to cementing over fracking excavations - there is a fair bit to be hopeful in this briefing on fusion energy generation, assembled for us by&nbsp; from Grok and Gemini. We were tempted to look into the many conspiracy theories around space aliens and speculate that the only plausible way any interstellar travel would be possible would have to involve fusion energy technology. Far too many rabbit holes lie down that path.Fusion energy in the UK has progressed significantly in the last decade due to increased research, funding, and strategic initiatives like the STEP programme, moving beyond purely experimental stages seen in 2015 with facilities like JET. This push towards commercialisation by 2040 involves substantial government investment and collaboration, contrasting with earlier reliance on international efforts. While challenges remain in achieving consistent net energy gain and cost-effectiveness, current projections suggest that the levelized cost of energy for mature fusion could become competitive with or even undercut renewable sources like wind and solar, potentially offering a stable baseload power solution in the future.UK Fusion Energy Advancement This briefing document reviews the significant strides made in the UK's pursuit of fusion energy over the past decade (2015-2025). The analysis reveals a substantial shift from primarily experimental research to a more focused and funded national strategy aimed at delivering a prototype fusion power plant (STEP) by 2040. Key drivers of this progress include increased government investment, the establishment of targeted national programs, technological advancements, and growing private sector involvement. While significant challenges remain, the UK is demonstrably closer to realising fusion energy than it was ten years ago, with a clearer roadmap and growing momentum. Furthermore, early projections suggest that the cost of mature fusion energy could be competitive with current renewable sources, offering a potential baseload complement.1. A Decade of Transformative Progress:The UK's fusion energy landscape has undergone a significant transformation since 2015. Ten years ago, the focus was largely on fundamental research, primarily through the Joint European Torus (JET) facility, with commercialisation prospects appearing distant. As the source states, "A decade ago, in 2015, fusion energy in the UK was still largely in the experimental phase, with facilities like the Joint European Torus (JET) at Culham providing critical data but no clear path to commercialization."The present situation (2025) is characterised by a national strategy, exemplified by the STEP program, which aims for a prototype power plant by 2040. This represents a shift from purely experimental goals to a tangible deliverable. The source highlights this shift: "Fast forward to 2025, and the landscape has shifted. The UK has pivoted toward an ambitious national strategy, exemplified by STEP, which aims to build a prototype fusion power plant in Nottinghamshire by 2040."2. Increased Funding and Strategic Planning:Government investment in fusion energy has significantly increased. By 2025, STEP had received over £300 million, with a further £410 million announced for 2025-2026. The broader Fusion Futures Programme commits up to £650 million through 2027 for research, development, and skills. This contrasts with the situation a decade ago, where funding was "significant but primarily directed toward international collaborations like ITER in France, with the UK contributing through Euratom, rather than a standalone national effort." The UK's decision not to rejoin Euratom in 2023 has spurred the development of an independent national strategy and dedicated funding streams. 3. Technological Advancements:Significant progress has been made in critical areas such as plasma physics, materials science, and magnet technology, including the use of high-temperature superconductors.The success of JET, culminating in a record 59 megajoules of energy in 2022, demonstrated improved control over fusion processes and validated design choices for future reactors. The source notes, "A key milestone came in 2022 when the Joint European Torus (JET) laboratory in Oxfordshire... broke its own world record by producing 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds—more than double the output of similar tests in 1997."Private sector involvement has grown considerably, with numerous UK-based fusion companies now active, driving innovation and pushing timelines. The source mentions, "...growing private sector involvement, which was nascent in 2015 but now includes dozens of UK-based fusion companies." 4. Economic Justification and Integration with Renewables:Economic analyses suggest a strong return on investment in fusion research, with a 2020 report indicating a £1.4 billion impact from £350 million of public funding over ten years.Fusion is increasingly seen as a vital complement to intermittent renewable energy sources, providing a potential solution to baseload power requirements. The source states, "Today, fusion is seen as a complement to renewables, addressing their intermittency, a priority that was less urgent in 2015 amid lower electrification demands." 5. Ongoing Challenges and Future Outlook:Despite the progress, significant challenges remain, including sustaining net energy gain over extended periods, managing extreme heat within reactors, and achieving cost-effective scalability. The 2040 target for STEP is ambitious and may face delays. Some experts suggest commercial fusion might be more likely in the 2050s. However, the current outlook is significantly more concrete than it was a decade ago, with a clear roadmap and tangible progress toward a prototype. The source concludes, "In short, while fusion isn’t here yet, the UK is measurably closer than it was in 2015—moving from theoretical promise to a structured push for delivery within 15 years." 6. Potential Cost Competitiveness:Estimates for the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of mature fusion range from 2.5 to 5 pence per kWh, potentially undercutting or matching the costs of current onshore wind. Nearer-term fusion (2030s-2040s) is projected to have an LCOE of 5-10 pence per kWh, making it competitive with offshore wind. These projections are based on research tied to inertial confinement fusion and estimates from programs like STEP and companies like Tokamak Energy. The source notes, "More conservative estimates for nearer-term fusion, such as those from the UK’s STEP program or Tokamak Energy’s ambitions, suggest an LCOE range of 5-10 pence per kWh by the 2030s or 2040s..." A key advantage of fusion over renewables is its potential to provide consistent baseload power, reducing the need for extensive backup systems or energy storage.However, the substantial upfront capital costs of fusion projects and the uncertainties associated with technological breakthroughs mean that renewables currently hold an advantage in terms of cost and readiness. Conclusion:The UK has made remarkable progress in its pursuit of fusion energy over the past decade. Increased investment, strategic national programs like STEP, technological breakthroughs validated by JET, and growing private sector engagement have shifted fusion from a distant aspiration to a more concrete goal. While significant technical and economic challenges persist, the UK now possesses a clearer roadmap and greater momentum towards delivering fusion power. Early cost projections suggest that mature fusion could be economically competitive with renewables and offer a crucial baseload power source. The next decade will be critical in determining whether the current trajectory translates into the successful deployment of fusion energy on the UK grid. And here's a trip down memory lane to the 50s, when al-fresco fission bomb testing was a thing.. . a fascinating site at <a data-mce-href="https://www.tumblr.com/thevaultoftheatomicspaceage" href="https://www.tumblr.com/thevaultoftheatomicspaceage" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.tumblr.com/thevaultoftheatomicspaceage</a><figure id="figure-4aahmmr3vqm8fzpxum" class=""><img id="4aahmmr3vqm8fzpxum" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/fqF9OpmWyetLpWzRBeINFYpvSWvyJiiyJy1oycV3yLTFSSnSC6hMUrvYZS2zp9UK.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="1:1" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/fqF9OpmWyetLpWzRBeINFYpvSWvyJiiyJy1oycV3yLTFSSnSC6hMUrvYZS2zp9UK.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure> Audio url veo.uk/UK_Fusion_Energy_A_Decade_of_Progress_Towards_Delivery.mp Image source https://spectrum.ieee.org/5-big-ideas-for-making-fusion-power-a-reality

10 Years of fusion energy development

Here's why the proposal to roll the BBC Licence Fee into the Council Tax would be made Under False Pretences:- Freeview does not work reliably in many places in the UK. It was doomed from the moment Blair's Labour government sold off crucial broadcast spectrum for 3G cellular services in the naughties from 2000 on. Now as the next UK Labour government floats a proposal to fold the BBC licence fee into council tax, set to rise in 2025, a glaring issue looms large: the unreliability of Freeview TV reception, especially on Band 4 UHF channels. The efficiency of collecting the license fee with council tax makes sense, but that makes the assumption that Freeview actually deliver a reliable viewing experience. It does not. so keep that in mind as this propositon unfolds...<a data-mce-href="https://rxtvinfo.com/2025/no-evasion-bbc-tv-licence-fee-replacement-could-be-linked-to-council-tax/" href="https://rxtvinfo.com/2025/no-evasion-bbc-tv-licence-fee-replacement-could-be-linked-to-council-tax/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BBC TV Licence Fee replacement could be linked to Council Tax - RXTV</a> For years, viewers—myself included—have endured glitches, dropouts, and outright signal loss, particularly around the spring and autumn equinoxes. Now, with this new funding model on the table, it’s time to ask: are we being charged under false pretences for a service that can’t deliver? And shouldn’t those misled by this flawed system, including the millions who’ve wasted time and money on aerial "fixes", be compensated?A Problem Foretold...See <a data-mce-href="https://poelposition.blogspot.com/2023/02/freeview-tv-is-fatally-flawed-it-can.html" href="https://poelposition.blogspot.com/2023/02/freeview-tv-is-fatally-flawed-it-can.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this blog post</a> for more detail.&nbsp; I saw this coming over two decades ago. In 2000, I spoke with Patricia Hewitt, then Minister of State for Small Business and E-Commerce, I warned about the long-term pitfalls of the UK’s spectrum auctions. The push to monetize UHF frequencies for digital TV, including Freeview, ignored a fundamental issue: atmospheric interference, like tropospheric ducting, would plague reception reliability. My caution was simple—these signals, especially in Band 4 UHF (470–614 MHz), would bend and travel unpredictably under certain weather conditions, clashing with distant transmitters and leaving viewers in the lurch. The response? A shrug. The politicians and their advisers gambled that it would be someone else’s mess by the time it unravelled. Well, it has, and here we are. And with another Labour Government to pick up the pieces. Analogue TV interference was easily spotted in the days of 625 line analogue TV - and this was typical "patterning" during a period of atmospheric disruption...&nbsp;<figure id="figure-krra6wmypbm83i6env" class=""><img id="krra6wmypbm83i6env" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/18xmrv3LFOlsJGc1EpiUuZ8b2bNaboL6SCgZYKtyd3HWKDhJDQhuB4HxtneUskIN.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/18xmrv3LFOlsJGc1EpiUuZ8b2bNaboL6SCgZYKtyd3HWKDhJDQhuB4HxtneUskIN.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>But digital TV reception and interference offers no progressive failure clues - the picture is all there - or all gone - and when the picture is broken it will frequently accompanied by loud rasping noises on sound. Why Freeview Fails Take my own setup: I’m located between the Alexandra Palace and Sudbury transmitters, a prime spot to see Freeview’s flaws in action. Every March and September, around the equinoxes, the UHF Band 4 channels—used by Alexandra Palace for BBC multiplexes—are vulnerable. Signals can be compromised for anything from minutes to days. Why? Tropospheric ducting. Stable high-pressure systems and temperature inversions, peaking at these times, turn the atmosphere into a waveguide, carrying UHF signals hundreds of miles beyond their intended range. Distant transmitters—Crystal Palace, Hannington, even France—muscle in, drowning out my local feed with interference.<figure id="figure-3f40oj6hn9m83ig9h3" class=""><img id="3f40oj6hn9m83ig9h3" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1fpYWt6Njt9C6w0dCFgPfciAaPQBKpH0iNumvrTqpsPyY46tvr9QgSxkL9CHm28B.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1fpYWt6Njt9C6w0dCFgPfciAaPQBKpH0iNumvrTqpsPyY46tvr9QgSxkL9CHm28B.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>This isn’t a fringe power level issue. Band 4’s lower UHF range is especially prone, and with Europe’s dense transmitter network, co-channel chaos is baked in. The BBC and Ofcom have long acknowledged this seasonal disruption, yet Freeview’s promise of “reliable, free TV” persists. For those of us chasing signal fixes—new aerials, boosters, endless retunes—it’s a costly wild goose chase.A Tax on a Broken Promise Now, the government wants to tie the BBC licence fee—currently £174.50 as of 2025—into council tax, a move pitched as fairer and harder to dodge. But if Freeview, a cornerstone of BBC’s terrestrial reach, can’t deliver consistently, what are we paying for? The <a data-mce-href="https://poelposition.blogspot.com/2023/02/freeview-tv-is-fatally-flawed-it-can.html" href="https://poelposition.blogspot.com/2023/02/freeview-tv-is-fatally-flawed-it-can.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Poel Position blog</a> nails it: “If your Freeview reception is glitching, demand a refund—you were misled into paying under false pretences.”&nbsp;This isn’t just a technical hiccup; it’s a systemic failure that those in charge in government and broadcast industry knew about - and ignored.Back in 2000, the spectrum auctions raked in £22.5 billion, a windfall from selling out TV broadcast capacity. But the physics of UHF don’t bend to political ambition. Patricia Hewitt’s team brushed off the warnings, betting the problem would stay buried. Today’s viewers, stuck with unreliable signals and a looming tax hike, know better.So then ... Compensation, Not Complacency, please. . If the licence fee becomes a council tax levy, it’s time to challenge its legitimacy. Households aren’t just funding BBC content—they’re propping up a delivery system that’s unfit for purpose. I’ve spent years tweaking aerials and advising others, all for a service that falters when the weather is fickle. Millions more have done the same, misled into thinking the fault’s theirs, not the overall broadcast system.The government owes us accountability. Compensation should be on the table—refunds for licence fees paid during years of known unreliability, and/or credits for aerial upgrades sold as solutions to an unsolvable flaw. The BBC and Ofcom have data on tropospheric interference; they’ve tracked equinox disruptions for decades. Those who gambled on Freeview’s viability, hoping not to get found out, should foot the bill, not viewers and taxpayers.A Call to Action As the new council tax proposal looms, let’s not just grumble—let’s demand better. Check your reception logs, note those equinox outages, and push back. Contact your MP, Ofcom, or the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) with evidence of Freeview’s failings. If they want our money, they need to prove it’s not built on a lie. And for those of us who warned them 25 years ago? It’s bittersweet vindication—but I’d rather see compensation than say, “I told you so.”

Freeview's fatal flaw

Commenced 10 March 2025, updateed March 23rd We all have many tales of computers that crash and destroy our efforts without warning. It is taken for granted that a perfidious personal computer system will happily accept your pearls of wisdom and keystrokes for hours at a time and then dump you at the start prompt without warning. Few other industries are allowed to get away with such a cavalier approach to product quality and reliability... and using customers to perform an unpaid Quality Control function.Following a frustrating time when my new W11 HP Notebook refused to log me into Microsoft OneDrive cloud storage - without giving any useful diagnostic clues other than a message saying it was trying to log me in - I am ready to contemplate taking a stand to get Microsoft to accept the fundamental responsibility that it has shirked since the 70s for all those users that have been suckered by MS marketing over the years, and been saddled with fundamentally unreliable computing solutions. This seems to exist because there has been an unwritten "contract of expedient convenience" - where being able to use 99.9% of the functional utility of the solution is so valuable that users are willing to put up with the 0.1% of glitches, and have learned to live with the problems and been forced to put with unreliability. When IBM got involved in the PC market it tried hard to import the values that it had established with its very professional "big iron mentality" - ie values and quality control developed in the world of serious mainframe computing services that were responsible for running massively onerous services in banking, government and defence, and their PC operating system known as OS/2 was an effort to make IBM quality and reliability available in the PC market.So I have been discussing this topic with AI bots, and getting some useful advice: but it's a bit like the conundrum/challenge of how to discourage (and sanction) politicians from lying...Grok empathises: "... I can understand your frustration with the recent Microsoft Outlook and OneDrive issues tied to registration server failures, especially given the long history of perceived unreliability with Microsoft software. The idea that 40 years of updates and products have cost users time&nbsp; (years!) and money (billions!) is a sentiment shared by many, and it’s not hard to see why—outages, bugs, and forced updates have been recurring headaches. Your question about how users can band together to sue Microsoft and force a fix is a big one, and while I can’t organize a lawsuit or give legal advice, I can break down the practical steps, challenges, and realities of such an effort based on what’s known about Microsoft’s legal protections and past litigation.<figure id="figure-iu18j2w80qm8353kc3" class=""><img id="iu18j2w80qm8353kc3" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/38RczvjMcC8kPvTJmcQF4tqRasuV4EgTtHV9pUgOSkYoQP2E0ulagB3HWu6G0QNs.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/38RczvjMcC8kPvTJmcQF4tqRasuV4EgTtHV9pUgOSkYoQP2E0ulagB3HWu6G0QNs.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>So never mind the Trump tariffs, WOTE is contemplating something more productive - by targeting US firms that have had their hands in our pockets for the past 40 years, living off we could contend are the immoral earnings raked in by selling products and services that not only do not work as advertised - they actively cost time and effort through dysfunctionality. The dysfunctionality is generally well known and discussed by users, and bug fixes are being constantly issued as updates that in turn break more installations. It's a game of whackamole where fixing one bug will often create two new issues.&nbsp; Microsoft has a get-out clause - they can often blame problems on the hardware running their software. The notion of IBM PC compatibility was a fixation for the whole of the personal computer induystry back in the day - and arguably the IBM PC was blighted by really serious shotcomings in memory management that resulted in many attempts at workaround fixes.&nbsp; &nbsp;(Unix and Apple users stop smirking, please.)&nbsp;Now consider ...<h3>In 2024, Microsoft achieved remarkable financial results. The company reported an operating income of over $109 billion, which marked a 24% increase year-over-year. Additionally, their annual revenue exceeded $245 billion... &nbsp;As of 2025, Bill Gates' net worth is estimated to be over $100 billion.</h3>Someone paid good money for that crashed PC and software, yet we seem to have been conned into fatalistically accepting the inevitable occasional failure after years of conditioning by Microsoft (especially) and the same sort of immunity that is granted to big pharma over the tradeoff for drug benefits that might not be available if they were made fully liable for the harm done.Following a frustrating and unnerving time when my new W11 HP Notebook refused to log into Microsoft OneDrive cloud storage without giving any useful diagnostic clues other than a message saying it was trying to log me in - I am ready to contemplate taking a stand to get try and Microsoft (especially) to accept the fundamental responsibility that it has shirked since the 70s for all those users that have been suckered by MS marketing over the years, and been saddled with fundamentally unreliable computing solutions. As it happened - after trying every one of the many suggestions in the MS "help" options - after 5 hours I accidentally found&nbsp; a cure to the Onedrive login issue (for now). It was to check your system DNS setting and be aware that the default ISP settings using their own DNS servers (and the local router IP)&nbsp; which may be compromisded for tracking and other purposes, may impede the required route to the MS server. So I added Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 as secondary, and &nbsp;it suddenly logged in and synced. I can't help thinking that a quick test utility might be possible to provide a diagnostic.&nbsp;All this seems to exist because there has been an unwritten "contract of expedient convenience" - where being able to use 99.9% of the functional utility of the solution is sufficiently valuable that users are willing to put up with the glitches, and have learned to live with the problems of unreliability. It is an abusive relationship, and we wish it could be avoided. When IBM got involved in the PC market,&nbsp; it tried to import the values that it had established with its very professional "big iron mentality" - ie values and quality control developed in the world of mainframe computing that were responsible for running massively onerous services in banking and government and defence, and their PC operating system known as OS/2 was an effort to make IBM quality and reliability available in the PC market.Copilot AI commencts on a Recent Outage ContextFirst, let’s address the current issue. If there’s been a major outage with Outlook and OneDrive due to a registration server failure (as you mentioned), it’s likely tied to a backend service disruption—something Microsoft has faced before, like the Azure Active Directory outages in 2021 or the Teams/Exchange disruptions in 2023. These incidents often stem from server-side issues, not necessarily the software on your device, but they still render the services unusable, costing users productivity. Microsoft typically acknowledges these via their Service Health Dashboard or X posts from <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/MSFT365Status" href="https://x.com/MSFT365Status" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@MSFT365Status</a>...but they rarely offer compensation beyond apologies unless it’s a paid enterprise customer with an SLA (Service Level Agreement). For individual or small-business users, this is where the frustration compounds—there’s no direct recourse built into the system.Can Users Sue Microsoft Collectively?<h3>Yes, users can sue Microsoft collectively, typically through a class-action lawsuit, but it’s an uphill battle due to legal and practical hurdles. Here’s how it could work and what you’d face:</h3>Step 1: Find a Common Grievance You’d need a specific, provable harm that affects a large group—like the Outlook/OneDrive outage costing measurable time or money (e.g., lost business deals, missed deadlines). General dissatisfaction with “40 years of dysfunctional software” is too broad for a court to tackle; it’d need to be narrowed to something concrete, like “this outage on March 7, 2025, caused X dollars in damages to Y users.”Step 2: Gather a Group A class-action suit requires a lead plaintiff (or a few) and a lawyer willing to represent the “class” of affected users. You’d need to rally people—possibly via forums like Reddit (r/Windows or r/Microsoft), X posts, or even a dedicated site. The more users with documented losses (e.g., receipts, emails proving missed opportunities), the stronger the case. Historically, Microsoft has faced class-actions—like the 2003 “Windows Vista Capable” logo fiasco or the 2016 Windows 10 forced-upgrade suits—so it’s not uncharted territory.Step 3: Overcome the EULA Microsoft’s End-User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Service (ToS) are the biggest roadblocks. When you installed Windows, Outlook, or signed up for OneDrive, you likely agreed to: A disclaimer of liability for most damages (e.g., “Microsoft isn’t responsible for lost data or profits unless we’re grossly negligent”). A limitation of remedies—often capping damages at what you paid for the software (which, for free services like OneDrive Basic, is $0). Mandatory arbitration for many disputes, waiving your right to sue in court unless you opted out within 30 days of agreeing (most don’t). Courts often uphold these terms unless they’re deemed “unconscionable” (e.g., outrageously unfair), which is rare. For example, in the 2016 Windows 10 upgrade lawsuits, Microsoft settled for $10,000 per claimant in some small claims cases, but larger class-actions fizzled due to these clauses.Step 4: Prove Negligence or Breach You’d need to show Microsoft knowingly shipped defective software or failed to maintain services in a way that’s legally actionable. The “not fit for purpose” argument could lean on consumer protection laws (e.g., the U.S.’s Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or the UK’s Consumer Rights Act 2015), but Microsoft would counter that their software meets “industry standards” and that outages are inevitable in complex systems. Past cases, like Stac Electronics v. Microsoft (1990s, over stolen code), succeeded because they proved specific wrongdoing—not just general unreliability.Step 5: Hire a Law Firm Class-actions need funding and expertise. Firms like Hagens Berman or Lieff Cabraser, which have tackled big tech before, might take it on contingency (they get paid only if you win). You’d pitch them evidence of widespread harm—like X posts from thousands of users during the outage, or financial losses tied to it.Why It’s Tough Precedent: Software companies rarely lose liability suits. The 2003 NYT article “Product Liability Lawsuits Are New Threat to Microsoft” predicted a wave of suits over security flaws, but EULAs and disclaimers largely held up. <h3>The industry norm is “use at your own risk,” unlike cars or appliances where defects can kill.</h3>Scale: Microsoft serves billions. Proving a systemic failure that’s legally their fault (not just annoying) is a high bar. Courts don’t mandate “perfect software.”Cost: Legal fees could dwarf any payout unless it’s a massive settlement (e.g., the $1.1B California case in 2004 over pricing, not functionality).Alternatives to Suing? Suing might feel good, but it’s slow and uncertain. Faster options: Public Pressure: Amplify the issue on X, tagging @Microsoft&nbsp;and @MSFT365Status Mass outrage has forced Microsoft to act—like reversing the Xbox Live price hike in 2021 after a day of backlash.Small Claims: Individuals can sue in small claims court (up to $10,000 in Washington state) for specific losses, bypassing arbitration if the amount’s low. It’s cheaper and quicker than a class-action.Regulatory Push: Complain to agencies like the FTC (U.S.) or CMA (UK) about deceptive practices or unreliable services. Enough noise could spark an investigation, as with the EU’s 2004 antitrust case against Microsoft.Could It Force a new approach to respect for customers'time..? Even if a lawsuit succeeded, courts can’t mandate “fix all Microsoft software.” They’d award damages or, at best, order specific changes (e.g., better outage prevention). Microsoft’s size and revenue ($211B in FY2024) mean they’d rather pay than overhaul everything—see their $120M Stac settlement or $8M Spyglass payout. Real change often comes from market pressure (e.g., losing users to Google Workspace) or government mandates, not lawsuits alone.Next Steps for You - If you’re serious: Document your losses from this outage (hours wasted, money lost). Search X for others affected—use terms like “Outlook down” or “OneDrive fail March 2025.”Contact a consumer law firm with that evidence and see if they’ll bite. Every Windows user might agree the software’s unreliable at times, but turning that into a winning lawsuit is a marathon, not a sprint. What’s your specific damage from this latest mess—any critical work lost? That could be your starting point. That clanking sound you can hear is from many cans being kicked further along down the lane.

Should Microsoft pay compensation for wasting users' time?

Started 06JAN25-v0.2 Updated 28FEB25 revised by grokThe ease with which this publishing platform can be updated tempts authors to continuously tweak, but we resist this as far as possible - and wait until there are substantive updates, and apply a new publication date which will move it back up the blog listings. The occasional hyperlinks seem to be appreciated by those willing to disappear down rabbit holes.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;But the vast subject of politicians struggling to tell the truth is a perennial challenge for various reasons:1: Politicians have been avoiding telling the truth for thousands of years. 2: When asked to comment, even AI concedes that there is a general acceptance of politicians lying is beyond the reach of the law. Copilot says quite candidly... " It's a frustrating reality, isn't it? Politicians often operate in a grey area where the line between truth and falsehood can blur. In many countries, freedom of speech protects politicians from legal consequences for lying, as long as they don't commit perjury or defamation. This means they can make misleading statements without facing legal repercussions. However, the court of public opinion can be a powerful force, and voters have the ability to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box. It's a complex issue, but one that highlights the importance of critical thinking and fact-checking in our political discourse."3: Aphorisms don't get much better than this:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Q:"How can you tell when a politician is lying?" &nbsp; &nbsp;A: Their lips move.So politicians and public servants seem immune to the consequences of their tendency to "reimagine the truth." The evidence that politicians escape accountability for their lies, including those perpetuated by "the Narrative," is undeniable. These lies often relate to topics that are the subject of conspiracy theories, showing general contempt for both truth and the public. When confronted head on with their whoppers they occasionally respond outrageously - when challenged that he called Zelenskyy a dictator, The Donald replied, almost with a twinkle in his eye:&nbsp; "Did I say that? I can't believe I said that. Next question," &nbsp;<figure id="figure-b2yn0k2h5m7oww1oa"><img id="b2yn0k2h5m7oww1oa" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/6mJOKYADvCBle4LGJr7LgDZN6NsuE5ERVor8Q8NTD7rLJqCRK4MgMmlsQT0jl8WW.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/6mJOKYADvCBle4LGJr7LgDZN6NsuE5ERVor8Q8NTD7rLJqCRK4MgMmlsQT0jl8WW.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Given his willingness to double down on contentious matters, it would take a brave reporter or interviewer to try and nail him over this reimagining of what was until that moment regarded as the apparent truth; and given the murky circumstances of recent Ukraine elections and the imposition of wartime martial law, there is no easy way to respond. Observers of <a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik" target="_blank" rel="noopener">real politick </a>will sigh and note this as another classic Trumpism for the archives. And so the world is kept usefully off-balance awaiting the next nudge.&nbsp; There is something of stage magician's skill with audience misdirection going on here...There is a general rule of thumb that suggests the senior politicians can get away with the biggest whoppers more readily than underlings.&nbsp; Boris Johnson managed to bluster and charm his way through political minefields that blew limbs off his bag carriers. Keir Starmer's consummate skill at bare-faced lying owes much to his legal advocacy background. He was supposed to clean up politics and even manages to seem indignant that his veracity is questioned - so remind yourself of Twitter's <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/JamesMelville/status/1894839179005014036" href="https://x.com/JamesMelville/status/1894839179005014036" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Melville's highlights compilation.</a>&nbsp; "Starmer lied to farmers, pensioners, students, WASPI women, council tax payers, energy bill payers and many other groups. The ultimate snake oil salesman." Thus, WOTE proposes a new branch of "equity law" for moral guidance tailored to the shifting realities of the 21st century regarding variable respect for the truth. We live in a "post-truth age" where politicians and lawyers routinely present enormous falsehoods, seemingly with an assumed dispensation from any requirement for telling the truth. If all lawyers were obligated to tell the truth, there would be no need for juries to determine which set of lies was least credible. Therefore, there should be two new offences: "contempt for the truth" and "contempt for the public." Those in positions of power, including judiciary members, politicians, media, lawyers, and public servants, would be required to acknowledge and explain when they've been caught lying, and they would be publicly tagged.Non-cooperation would lead to an assumption of guilt, resulting in public shaming on a "wall of shame." Lies would be categorized from "genuine misunderstanding" to "banged to rights," with a weighting factor to assess the real-world impact of the lie. This would affect their "credibility credit rating," potentially with public opinion tested through a Twitter vote.Initially, no specific sanctions beyond naming and shaming are proposed. Lies and truths would be listed together, making the arrogance visible for public scrutiny. If individuals or organizations are wrongly accused, they can seek recourse through traditional laws concerning libel and defamation. This system could be likened to an extended version of community notes combined with trust pilot, especially since many AI and fact-checker platforms appear biased by disinformation agendas.&nbsp;The finest propaganda, as exemplified by students of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda master, is 99% truth mixed with 1% potent lies and deliberate malice.This will undoubtedly be contentious, but action must be taken to make an effort to restore respect for the truth and set examples.The level of misinformation we've witnessed, especially since the Pandemic, where fake news and disinformation were sanctioned under the guise of the greater good and/or&nbsp; public interest, is staggering. This misinformation has been associated with events like the pandemic, Net Zero policies, the Rotherham abuse scandal, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Stockport terrorist attack, and the yet-to-be-revealed truths about Ukraine financial scandals.&nbsp; Maybe even the much heralded appearance of the Epstein files.<figure id="figure-vliaevzt9vm575lkbu"><img id="vliaevzt9vm575lkbu" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2aGZjMihYp4KTfOCl4YuhVvufY646t0Ca2ZQWbojDdWqzD4lnorjfJ42MhsEfGdx.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 50% 15%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="50%" data-positiony="15%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2aGZjMihYp4KTfOCl4YuhVvufY646t0Ca2ZQWbojDdWqzD4lnorjfJ42MhsEfGdx.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 50% 15%;"></figure>Finally, the real motives behind Rachel Reeves' plans to nationalize UK farming land, the last significant asset not under government control, are becoming clear. These plans seem to be a strategy to raise funds for the government's faltering economic policies by selling the land to private equity funds, reminiscent of Blair and Brown's PFI (Private Finance Initiative) schemes.<figure id="figure-cb2kflvhlem575vsks"><img id="cb2kflvhlem575vsks" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/286b7g1KTsFeuFEGf5QfIKmuyrJWURHuhQOgQv9dDSQvf2msJ4k8H0UQAGLiUwTi.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/286b7g1KTsFeuFEGf5QfIKmuyrJWURHuhQOgQv9dDSQvf2msJ4k8H0UQAGLiUwTi.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Expect similar revelations around Angela Rayner's fantasy housing policy.*WoteFix- is an initiative to highlight discussion topics and subjects that need fixing but are not policy documents (WOTE will not be "owning" specific policy, remember?) but deserve to be noted and discussed with politicians who are smart enough to acknowledge and understand the significant bond of trust represented by the <a data-mce-href="https://wote.uk/be-disruptive" href="https://wote.uk/be-disruptive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wote Pledge.</a> The original version of this post was discussed by a Google AI bot that turned it into a podcast. The updates do not obviate this debate, which continues to make fascinatuing listening... If your mind is not totally boggled by this, then check you still have a pulse...<figure id="figure-o3h2g19kunm5s8wyx2" class=""><iframe id="o3h2g19kunm5s8wyx2" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OB4e6Psz9Jo" class="w-full bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" allowfullscreen="" data-url="https://youtu.be/OB4e6Psz9Jo" data-corners="small" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OB4e6Psz9Jo" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></iframe></figure>

Contempt for the people - exposing the liars

I have press ganged a perfect tweeted proposition by Simon70 @SimonS1970 If I was Donald Trump, this is how I would handle Keir Starmer and the Chagos Islands.I would remind Starmer that in 2021 Mauritius criminalised anyone who deny Mauritius's sovereignty over them, that's all the Chagossian people in exile. Starmer's deal therefore enslaves a people contrary to international human rights law to a country who doesn't recognise their indigenous rights.As British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar rests on the democratic will of both the Falkland islanders and Gibraltans, being that they overwhelmingly wish to remain British, well how does that tally with the Chagossian people, who wish to remain British, but have been given no democratic rights by the human rights lawyer Starmer?I would ask Starmer if he wants to protect the democratic and human rights of all people, or whether the Chagossian people are simply collateral damage in regard to the fact that he is desperate for economic support to prop up the UK economy he's destroyed, from the CCP, which is why he's prepared to threaten both UK and USA national security to please the CCP and help them to project their imperialism?Bearing in mind that he would not be able to answer the above, the deal he has done is clearly one that has betrayal of both the UK and USA and moral and ethical corruption at its core. I would then ask Starmer why - as Trump - I wouldn't voice my support for my great friend and South American ally, Milei in his Argentinian claim for the Falklands, or and equally importantly, why as a USA President looking to further entrench my interests in the Spanish-speaking South America, I wouldn't roll in behind Spain's claim for Gibraltar?I would then put my deal on the table to Starmer, that is that the USA simply takes the stewardship of the Chagos Islands off the British. It does so granting the Chagossian people the right to return to their islands and instead of the British paying Mauritius to become colonisers, who by law deny the Chagossians their right to identify as British Chagossians, the British can contribute to a fund that the USA will match, to develop the islands for the Chagossians.I would remind Starmer that the USA does not recognise the international criminal court on which he and Hermer based their spurious betrayal, rather it has just sanctioned them and that if the Chagossian people are happy with that deal, with their identity and indigenous human rights being protected by it, well the international criminal court would look even more corrupt and Marxist, a thing they share with both Starmer and Hermer, than they already are if they then turned round and denied the democratic will of the Chagossians.Essentially I would leave Starmer in no doubt that the USA will do everything it sees fit to protect its national security interests, of which Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands are pivotal and that his deal which threatens it, is dead on delivery, more so because the USA already occupies Diego Garcia. I'd tell Starmer that he has the chance to save face internationally by putting the democratic will of the Chagossians at the forefront of our new "agreed deal", he becomes the champion of human rights he always pretends to be, again.I would then tell Starmer that my price for not utterly destroying his tenure as PM of the UK, by threatening something more devastating, USA support for the UK's independent nuclear deterrent for instance, is Lord Hermer and Ed Miliband's heads on a plate. Once agreed I'd then be prepared to talk about tariffs and whether the economy, industry and business destroying Rachel Reeves is competent to be the UK's Chancellor in our "special relationship", which is now not as important because of Starmer than the real special relationship the USA now has with Europe, that between Trump and Meloni, who has a veto on anything Starmer may try to do with the EU to prop up the UK economy he's crashed.I'd happily agree to all that and then as soon as Starmer left and put into practice what had been agreed, I'd continue to follow a path of regime change when it comes to Starmer and Labour as his betrayal to and courting of the CCP is unforgivable. And the only way Trump can make not only America, but the UK and Europe and greater western democratic civilisation and alliance great again, is the removal of all who epitomise our decline into communist totalitarianism and globalist authoritarianism.Starmer is desperate, he would accept all of the above, he's also betrayed everyone on his path to power, so he'd betray his cabinet if Trump left him with one forlorn hope and carrot, a trade deal and economic growth and Meloni's support in the EU. Trump literally has Starmer's balls and his destiny in his hands and all of ours in the UK too, fortunately for us he has a soft spot for the UK, but not for Starmer which is why Starmer's attempt to play on Trump's ego with the pomp and circumstance of a UK state visit failed so predictably, with Trump inviting of the King to visit him, which led to Starmer's desperate grovelling to visit Trump last week. <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/messages/14261338-1795098293472501761" href="https://x.com/messages/14261338-1795098293472501761" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Simon70 on twitter</a> - please engage and comment. <a data-mce-href="https://veo.uk/chagos-wote.mp3" href="https://veo.uk/chagos-wote.mp3" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Listen to An AI Commentary on this post</a>

The WOTE.uk Federation 2025

Blog: the Revolution starts here...

Money for nothing: QE made easy!

10 Years of fusion energy development

Freeview's fatal flaw

Should Microsoft pay compensation for wasting users' time?

Contempt for the people - exposing the liars

Chagos solved