Blog

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

Pete continues his series of posts trying to tell the numbskulls of the ragged right how to smarten up and get on parade with a chance of marching in step.&nbsp; He observes many aspects of the modern political battlefield and draws conclusions that ought to have been self-evident ...but evidently are not...All human organisations essentially work the same way. <h3>An effective organisation is one where the people of the front lines know what they are doing and why - are properly equipped&nbsp; - and are respected by their leaders.</h3>Take the US Army, for instance. During WW2, they knew what they were doing and why they were fighting. Fast-forward to Vietnam, where there was no clear basis for the war, no coherence to operations, no discernible plan, and their lives were being wasted. Moreover, they didn't have the backing of the American people.Consequently, discipline collapsed, drug taking was rife, soldiers wouldn't take any risks, and saw their main mission just to stay alive long enough to get home. When there was so little hope of achieving anything, it was not unknown for soldiers to murder their officers.&nbsp;There are parallels with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody could say what victory looked like, and the people doing the fighting could scarcely see the point. This is the difference between winning and losing.<figure id="figure-st2vcee4y9m70s27pw"><img id="st2vcee4y9m70s27pw" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1dE7LdWvERLturmBLJXySYFGcNtYwnuIIUchDHUznHqxCy1tdZXdY7m6CzQTDjNa.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 50% 30%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="50%" data-positiony="30%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1dE7LdWvERLturmBLJXySYFGcNtYwnuIIUchDHUznHqxCy1tdZXdY7m6CzQTDjNa.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: 50% 30%;"></figure>Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery always understood this dynamic. He understood that times had changed, and you couldn't treat fighting men as cannon fodder. They were increasingly educated men who would not fight without a reason. You could no longer take their loyalty for granted, nor could loyalty be achieved with hard discipline. Moreover, men won't fight unless there's hope they can win. This is why leadership is so important. Generals have to lead from the front. Good commanders are always visible.&nbsp;The same is true of political parties.<h3>You cannot expect activists to go out into the street to a sell a party that doesn't have a coherent purpose or policies to speak of. </h3>You can't motivate or inspire people without a vision of what victory looks like. Where you get total collapse is when the leadership takes loyalty for granted, treats the foot soldiers with contempt, insults their intelligence, and isn't committed to the fight. Pretty soon, you have a mutiny. Neither activists nor voters will go out of their way for you.&nbsp;This, ultimately, is why the Tories and Reform are defunct parties. Nobody is able to say what the Tory party is for, nobody understands it, and nobody wants to fight for it. Its leader doesn't even realise there's a war on. Meanwhile, Reform, a new army, has a command structure, plenty of generals but no definition that gives it purpose. It's attracting disillusioned foot soldiers who are desperate for any leadership, but veterans are now starting to see the same patterns emerging. They have plenty of generals but none who actually want to go to war. In place of policies, they have slogans, which is akin with sending troops into battle without rifles. <h3>As such, neither party is capable of taking on the fight and winning.</h3>Here's an <a data-mce-href="https://veo.uk/Picking%20Battles%20Wisely_%20Political%20Strategy%20and%20Leadership.mp3" href="https://veo.uk/Picking%20Battles%20Wisely_%20Political%20Strategy%20and%20Leadership.mp3" target="_blank" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">another&nbsp; AI Audio debate</a> based on this page . <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1889354336259473526" href="https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1889354336259473526" target="_blank" rel="noopener">From Twitter - go here to comment</a> 11FEB26 0V2 And here's an interesting AI analysis for further study...Here's a briefing document analysing the provided excerpt from "Picking battles wisely" from the WOTE.uk federation blog.Briefing Document: Analysis of "Picking battles wisely" (WOTE.uk)Source: Excerpt from "Picking battles wisely," WOTE.uk Blog, dated February 11, 2025. Authors: PN &amp; WP (Pete &amp; WP assumed) Subject: Analysis of political organisation effectiveness through a military analogy, with specific critique of the Conservative and Reform parties.Executive Summary:The blog post "Picking battles wisely" argues that successful organisations, whether military or political, require a clear purpose, effective leadership that respects and understands its "frontline" members (activists/soldiers), and a demonstrable path to victory. The authors use the analogy of the US Army's contrasting experiences in WWII and Vietnam, highlighting the detrimental effects of a lack of clear objectives and leadership disconnect. The piece then applies this framework to critique the current state of the Conservative ("Tory") and Reform parties in the UK, suggesting they are failing due to a lack of coherent purpose, ineffective leadership, and an inability to inspire or motivate their supporters. WOTE.uk positions itself as a necessary alternative that can provide efficient, common sense government, without the disadvantages of dogma.Key Themes and Ideas:The Importance of Clear Purpose and Objectives: The central argument revolves around the necessity of a well-defined purpose for any organisation to succeed. The authors illustrate this with the military example: "During WW2, they knew what they were doing and why they were fighting. Fast-forward to Vietnam, where there was no clear basis for the war, no coherence to operations, no discernible plan, and their lives were being wasted." The lack of clarity led to a breakdown in morale and effectiveness. Effective Leadership and Respect for "Frontline" Members: The piece emphasises that effective leadership requires respect for and understanding of the people on the "front lines." "An effective organisation is one where the people of the front lines know what they are doing and why - are properly equipped - and are respected by their leaders." The analogy uses Field Marshall Montgomery as an example of a leader who understood the need to motivate and respect his troops, as opposed to treating them as "cannon fodder". The Peril of Disconnect and Contempt: The blog argues that when leadership takes loyalty for granted, treats its members with contempt, and fails to commit to the fight, the organisation will inevitably collapse. "Where you get total collapse is when the leadership takes loyalty for granted, treats the foot soldiers with contempt, insults their intelligence, and isn't committed to the fight. Pretty soon, you have a mutiny." Critique of the Conservative and Reform Parties: The authors apply the above principles to critique the contemporary political landscape. The Conservative party is portrayed as lacking a defined purpose or identity, leading to apathy and disengagement among its supporters. "This, ultimately, is why the Tories and Reform are defunct parties. Nobody is able to say what the Tory party is for, nobody understands it, and nobody wants to fight for it. Its leader doesn't even realise there's a war on." Reform is seen as having a command structure but lacking substance, policies, and generals who are not actually committed to pursuing any policies, just slogans. WOTE.uk as an Alternative: While not explicitly stated as the primary focus, the piece implicitly positions WOTE.uk as a viable alternative, offering "efficient and common sense government without the millstone of dogmatic politics." This can be interpreted as WOTE.uk is clear on its purpose and not taking activists for granted. Key Quotes:"An effective organisation is one where the people of the front lines know what they are doing and why - are properly equipped - and are respected by their leaders." "During WW2, they knew what they were doing and why they were fighting. Fast-forward to Vietnam, where there was no clear basis for the war, no coherence to operations, no discernible plan, and their lives were being wasted." "When there was so little hope of achieving anything, it was not unknown for soldiers to murder their officers." "You cannot expect activists to go out into the street to a sell a party that doesn't have a coherent purpose or policies to speak of." "This, ultimately, is why the Tories and Reform are defunct parties. Nobody is able to say what the Tory party is for, nobody understands it, and nobody wants to fight for it. Its leader doesn't even realise there's a war on." "It's attracting disillusioned foot soldiers who are desperate for any leadership." "WOTE.uk aims to provide efficient and common sense government without the millstone of dogmatic politics." Implications:The piece suggests a potential vulnerability for established political parties, particularly among disillusioned voters and activists. It highlights the importance of clear communication, strong leadership, and a well-defined purpose in attracting and retaining support. It serves as a promotional piece for WOTE.uk, implicitly positioning it as an alternative for those dissatisfied with the status quo. Potential Questions for Further Investigation:What are the specific policies and objectives of WOTE.uk that address the perceived shortcomings of the Conservative and Reform parties? How does WOTE.uk plan to engage and motivate its members, and how does it differ from the perceived failures of the established parties? What is the membership and support base of WOTE.uk, and what are its prospects for future growth and influence?

Picking battles wisely

Making Britain Great Again

Chris Martz provides advice for climate catastrophists. Things just got tougher for climate alarmists. 😱Remember when Iceberg A-68 calved off Antarctica's Larsen C Ice Shelf in the summer of 2017? The climate chicken littles blamed it on global warming. 🐔Well, unfortunately for their alarm, a study published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) in November has cast some serious doubt on that claim. MacKie et al. (2024) found:📊 The break-off of Iceberg A-68 from the Larsen C Ice Shelf was 𝒏𝒐𝒕 statistically exceptional.🛰️ There has been 𝒏𝒐 increase in size of the annual largest iceberg calving off of Antarctica since satellite measurements began in 1976.🧊 Using a generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution model, it is revealed that there could, in a theoretical sense, be calving events that produce icebergs several times larger than anything observed in the 47-year-long satellite era, and even if that were to occur, such an event could not necessarily be tied to man-made global warming. These have already occurred throughout the Holocene (e.g., Bentley et al., 2005).🔗MacKie et al. (2024): <a data-mce-href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL112235" href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL112235">https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL112235</a>🔗Bentley et al. (2005): <a data-mce-href="https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/33/3/173/29528/Early-Holocene-retreat-of-the-George-VI-Ice-Shelf" href="https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/33/3/173/29528/Early-Holocene-retreat-of-the-George-VI-Ice-Shelf">https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/33/3/173/29528/Early-Holocene-retreat-of-the-George-VI-Ice-Shelf</a>Here's an excerpt from the new paper,🗨️ “𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘-𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑜𝑓 𝐴68 𝑖𝑛 2017 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒂 𝒔𝒚𝒎𝒑𝒕𝒐𝒎 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆. 𝐼𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡, 𝐴68 𝑖𝑠 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒖𝒏𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑, 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 1986 𝑎𝑛𝑑 2020.”The authors also underscore important dynamics about ice sheet behavior in that these kinds of calving events are indicative of healthy glacier advance and retreat, not necessarily ice sheet instability.🗨️ “𝐴𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ, 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂𝒖𝒕𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒃𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒇 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡.”While basal melting increases the rate of ice calving, and calving event frequency did increase around 2015-16 (see here: https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/4583/2021/), what this study underscores is that extreme iceberg calving events in Antarctica are not necessarily due to climate change and therefore shouldn't be treated as the poster child for it.Despite these findings, the next time you hear “An iceberg the size of Rhode Island broke off Antarctica last week,” it will be blamed on your SUV. <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1888745544060985412" href="https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1888745544060985412">Chris Martz on Twitter</a> ..read the replies and followup

The WOTE.uk Federation 2025

Blog: the Revolution starts here...

Freeview's fatal flaw

Should Microsoft pay compensation for wasting users' time?

Contempt for the people - exposing the liars

Picking battles wisely

Making Britain Great Again

Arctic Sea Ice: don't panic