• The Great Glow Bull Warning Scam: The Evidence is right before you!

      0 comments

    Your Editor has mentioned this before in previous articles, but it is worth mentioning again: An old friend of my late father, a lawyer once said of the crime of fraud:
    “Fraud, if persisted with [by the fraudster] inevitably leads to the arrest, charging, conviction and generally, the imprisonment of the fraudster.”
    This is because the fraud always carries with it the evidence that convicts the fraudster; the false or misleading invoices etc. In other words there is generally a trail of evidence for police officers to follow.
    As with such as insurance fraud, so it is with The Great Glow Bull Warning Scam.
    Another thing the The Great Glow Bull Warning Scam shares with other frauds is that there are generally two sets of participants – we are not talking of offender and victim. These are the guilty and the innocent. There are those who are knowingly setting out to deceive – for their own ends. Then there are those gullible associates who have been taken in by the fraudsters. These are people who have themselves been deceived and whilst taking part in the fraud, genuinely believe that the enterprise they are involved in is honest and legitimate. Thus it is that the fraudster not only deceives their victim but also their innocent accomplice.
    The British Gazette DOES NOT KNOW who is guilty and who is innocent. Thus, in line with the principle of English and Scottish Law, ALL persons and organisations are assumed by this organ and it’s Editor to be INNOCENT of ANY deliberate deception, malfeasance, misrepresentation or any other wrongful act.
    Notwithstanding the fact that this organ has no knowledge of who is committing this fraud, the evidence of it is clearly all around us!
    The images above are prime examples.
    To demonstrate, let us turn the argument on it’s head.
    Let us suppose that the claims that the increase in levels of CO2 is a grave danger to the future of human well being are correct.
    Were this the case those in the know would NOT be advocating that the UK’s (and other countries) electrical power is generated by such as wind turbines and solar panels on peoples roofs. This is because they do not and cannot generate the electricity required by commerce and industry in the quantities needed – let alone at a competitive price!
    Your Editor can of course speak from first hand experience – from the 16 panels of the roof above his home! The electricity generated by these panels – on a sunny day – can power your Editor’s fridge freezer. Because this device is switched on all the time there is very little spare electricity to send to such large users as Rolls Royce!
    These methods of electrical power generation are impractical.
    They do however have two highly specific advantages that are of value to the fraudsters:
    1. They are cheap (in comparison with the capital cost of a large coal fired power station).
    2. They are HIGHLY VISIBLE.
    It is point 2 that commends itself to the fraudsters. This is because the General Public notice these things and therefore it can be demonstrated that “something is being done.”
    Continuing with the hypothetical scenario (that CO2 is a SERIOUS threat) this raises interesting questions:
    - Could the UK generate ALL the electricity that it needs from so called “zero or low CO2 sources” whilst at the same time ensuring that such a supply would be both reliable (not dependent on the wind blowing or the sun shining) and competitively priced (so UK industry can compete in the world)?
    - Could the above be achieved WITHOUT reliance on nuclear power?
    The answer to BOTH these questions is YES!
    “So, what would the UK look like?” We hear you ask Dear Reader.
    Very different! Is the answer!
    First of all it is important to realise the SOURCE. There would be two principal sources: Tidal Barrage and “conventional” Hydro-Electric plants. It is also important to realise that these would all be BASE LOAD sources. This would mean that it would be necessary for the UK to EXPORT the EXCESS electricity generated. The operational problem for a satisfactory solution [to the UK's electrical needs] would be TOO MUCH electricity instead of today’s NOT ENOUGH. This means that there would NEED TO BE several high capacity interconnects with the continent.

    A very significant proportion of the UK’s electricity – would come from three colossal tidal sources:

    Going from North to South:
    - A colossal SEA WALL constructed across the Solway Firth from Southerness Point on the Kirkcudbrightshire coast to Dubmill Point on the coast of Cumberland.
    - A colossal SEA WALL constructed across Morecambe Bay from Rossall Point at Fleetwood in Lancashire to Hilpsford Point at the southern end of the Isle of Walney and then another colossal SEA WALL constructed across the Duddon Estuary from the northern tip of the Isle of Walney to Haverigg Point in Cumberland on the estuary’s northern shore. This would require the relocation of BAE Systems Maritime submarine building facility elsewhere. Tyneside or Wearside perhaps?
    - A colossal SEA WALL constructed across the Bristol Channel from Hurlstone Point on the north Somerset coast to Nash Point on the Monknash Coast in Glamorganshire. This wall would contain locks to facilitate sea traffic from the docks at the ports of Avonmouth and Cardiff.
    The adjective “colossal” is used as everything about these wonders of the modern world would be on a VAST scale. This includes the capital cost! It would be an EYE WATERING amount of money!
    Mr Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England would have to lie down in a quiet, darkened room to recover from the shock!
    However, the amount of electricity generated would be equally as colossal! Furthermore given that there would be no fuel costs – only a modest cost for REGULAR dredging and maintenance – the unit cost of the electricity generated would be LOW! In other words, these would be cheap and reliable sources of electricity.

    Vast as they would be, these three sea walls would not deliver all the UK’s electrical requirements. This is because the UK’s population will soon equal Germany’s.

    Two much smaller sea walls could be constructed across the Ribble Estuary between Lythan St Annes and Southport in Lancashire and across the Dee Estuary between West Kirby in the Wirral and the Point of Ayr in Flintshire (the most northern part of Wales).

    To make up the total requirement a number of conventional hydro-electric dams would have to be constructed. These would be constructed in Wales, both in the north and the south. This would mean that many former mining communities would be displaced.

    These projects would of course invite the fury of the Royal Society of the Protection of Birds (RSPB)! And many others!

    However, IF the threat [of CO2] was REAL, such projects WOULD have been proposed. To gain Tory support a considerable degree of “public private partnership” would be involved. The support of the Trade’s Union Congress would be a given as trades union leaders would see that these vast projects would lead to many jobs being created during the construction phase and the reliable low cost electricity produced would help UK industry.

    This would mean that the Labour Party would be told to support such plans. He who Pays the Piper, Calls the Tune.

    It must be noted that the UK is particularly well suited to such projects as it is a very stable area in terms of geology. Earthquakes are a BIG PROBLEM for large sea walls and dams. As the Chinese are only too well aware!
    All of this RAISES a VERY significant question:

    Since wind turbines and solar panels CANNOT provide the UK with the electricity it needs, coal powered fire stations are being closed and not enough gas powered stations are being built and the nuclear stations are yet to proceed, just WHERE is the UK’s electricity going to come from?

    This is a question to which Your Editor has no answer.

    The question is this: Does this lady?The Right Honourable, Amber Rudd MP Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
    NB: The answer; “I haven’t got a clue!” Is NOT acceptable for a Cabinet Minister!

    Write a comment