Greenpeace activists arrested for covering Rishi Sunak's mansion in black fabric

a reply to: Freeborn

I'm going with the former for 10 points, please.



The man sounds disturbing even doing PR stunts by my guess.

Nearly as bad as the Boris's makes models of buses malarky if not worse.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: AlienBorg

Chequers is the official R&R destination for the PM which the taxpayer funds security for (equivallent of Camp David) - this is one of several private mansions Sunak is meant to pay for out of his billions.

I doubt he's ever visited or stayed a night at the property as he openly hates northerners and working class people.

EDIT: Security is a strange one in the UK - the blueprints for 10, 11 and 12 Downing street are public domain but ULEZ and the Congestion Charge are the world's most advanced 'ring of steel' surveilance network protecting London.

Well, that's all nice and good but the security issues are obvious. Apart from this, what did these activists achieve? Making some news at the very best.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Personally I'd have filled his mansion with migrants , then he could have a taste of how the rest of us feel.

The bigger question about the Greenpeace action for me is how were they allowed to do that , where was the security ?

Greenpeace as always have their heads in the clouds , opening up exploration for resources we need is the only option in the current ... errm ... climate.

I always thought that the French had it right when dealing with Greenpeace.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: nickyw

The fact is nuclear power plants are designed with multiple layers of safety measures and have backup systems in place and if designed, maintained, and ran properly, are a perfectly safe way to generate vast quantities of electrical power.

And there are regulatory agencies that set stringent safety standards and conduct inspections to ensure compliance.

Like it or lump it nuclear power generation on a large scale, or like you suggest the introduction of smaller modular reactors, probably a combination of both, are going to be part of the UK future power generation wise, else fact is we are apt to end up sitting in the dark.

That being said, i think the Greenpeace activists might have somewhat of a different opinion where the likes of more nuclear rectors are concerned.

The only feasible solution is what precisely the UK have at the moment, 78.4% reliance on fossil fuels and 6.1% on nuclear power according to the BBC article in my OP. Less reliance on fossil fuels means more reliance on nuclear energy. Note, none of these are renewable, but the best sources of energy by far.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: AlienBorg

Personally I'd have filled his mansion with migrants , then he could have a taste of how the rest of us feel.

The bigger question about the Greenpeace action for me is how were they allowed to do that , where was the security ?

Greenpeace as always have their heads in the clouds , opening up exploration for resources we need is the only option in the current ... errm ... climate.

I don't find an issue with this.
Empty properties should be occupied instead of having homeless people living on the streets.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I always thought that the French had it right when dealing with Greenpeace.

Which is?

a reply to: AlienBorg

I don't find an issue with this.
Empty properties should be occupied instead of having homeless people living on the streets.

Sunak is on holiday , if people came into my garden and started messing with my house I'd want them punished , I don't see why that should be any different for any citizen of this country.

a reply to: AlienBorg

They are trying to get away from the reliance on fossil fuels through AlienBorg.

At some point in the not to distant future it is not unreasonable to surmise nuclear power generation will completely supplant and replace our gas, coal, and oil power plants.

And yes none of these are renewable but nuclear power generation seems to be the way forward.

End of the day whatever way we choose to generate the steam, the turbines spin the same way or thereabouts, which is something to consider.

a reply to: andy06shake

I was sent an email from the Scottish energy department and they are increasing their Hydrogen output
thanks to breakthroughs from Japanese scientists with red hydrogen, and my mate works with shell and a few others friends from school are all offshore guys
and they tell me that big oil are directing a lot of money into hydrogen.
i posted a while ago in another thread that Russia just spent some crazy amount on two new hydrogen plants in teh tundra and ice breaker transport ships i think it was 63 billion per ship

but not sure why UK Gov granted these licenses when we were told in 2014 or thereabouts there was only 10 years left in north sea oil

a reply to: sapien82

Where Hydrogen is concerned, that's only really considered a renewable if the process used in its extraction is also renewable.

Not heard of red hydrogen before bar the daft "RED Hydrogen One" failed smartphone-type thingamabob.

If it works all the same and is safe and clean good luck to them, but could hydrogen-powered electrical plants really generate the same sort of electrical power, or give us the bang for buck as nuclear reactors?

I don't know to be honest, i imagine there would need to be rather a lot of them.

As to "why UK Gov granted these licenses when we were told in 2014 or thereabouts there was only 10 years left in north sea oil" profit money and backhanders would be my guess.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: AlienBorg

I don't find an issue with this.
Empty properties should be occupied instead of having homeless people living on the streets.

Sunak is on holiday , if people came into my garden and started messing with my house I'd want them punished , I don't see why that should be any different for any citizen of this country.

You're right.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

They are trying to get away from the reliance on fossil fuels through AlienBorg.

At some point in the not to distant future it is not unreasonable to surmise nuclear power generation will completely supplant and replace our gas, coal, and oil power plants.

And yes none of these are renewable but nuclear power generation seems to be the way forward.

End of the day whatever way we choose to generate the steam, the turbines spin the same way or thereabouts, which is something to consider.

I would think a good part of UK's needs will be covered by nuclear power. Currently is at 6.1% but unlikely to go up to 50%. The problem is the renewable sources of energy don't seem to be in the big picture, maybe supplementing the main energy sources, but nothing like the activists are portraying.

a reply to: andy06shake

What a pair of complete twats.

For the record; I'm all for nuclear power.

a reply to: andy06shake

I think the thing about the red hydrogen was that it was cleaner and also safer and hydrogen is the most abundant element.

The liquid hydrogen plants Russia built were in the tundra so the plants operating costs to keep the hydrogen cold were reduced significantly.

I think this might be the video I watched about Japan


and the video on Russian plants

a reply to: sapien82

The problem being through sapien82 energy density.

Nuclear plants have an extremely high energy density compared to conventional power plants where a relatively small amount of nuclear fuel can produce large amounts of electricity over extended periods of time.

The same thing simply cannot be said about conventional fuel-based power plants which require significantly larger amounts of fuel to produce a similar amount of energy.

Fact is at some point down the line our conventional-based means of power generation simply won't be able to keep up with the demand unless we are to build 1000s of facilities.

Ile get looked at funny the now mate if i start watching videos, but ile give them a go when im finished.

Hydrogen is interesting as a power source, just not sure how viable it would be if it was ever to become or primary source of power generation.

It certainly seems clear enough as a fuel source and can be produced from a variety of domestic resources as you suggest but again far as i can establish nuclear power still produces the best bang for buck and i imagine that's only going to become more the case as the technologies progress.

ye seen this whopper

nae wonder they signed new deals
cus they just wanted to get rich

new BP deal , nets sunaks wife 1.5 billion

now tell me this isnt theft of tax payers money?

this is also theft of natural resources as damn sure the UK wont benefit from this new deal
we will see a pittence in returns on the natural resources

a reply to: sapien82

That's just blatant profiteering.

Once over our politicians at least tried to be discreet about their nefarious dealings, the current and recent crop of horrible bastards are brazenly open about it.

They treat us with contempt.

a reply to: Freeborn

isnt nepotism and giving contracts to your family against the law if you are in politics ?

I thought this was illegal ?

if this was ruled illegal

michael gove

and the pandemic contracts to friends of the tories

1bn contracts to tories donors

what the actual # is happening here?
surely this is all illegal

Sunak should be sacked and his wife should give back the UK publics money
and they should be banned from UK politics

a reply to: sapien82

If it isn't illegal it certainly should be.

From the first day Cameron was elected this current bunch of Tories have been involved in a non-stop stream of amoral/illegal and unethical dealings and goings-on.

They believe they are above the law and can act with impunity.

As for being banned from politics?
Nothing like a public hanging to focus attention.

Anyone who seeks to be elected to that cesspit that is Westminster should automatically be banned from being allowed to.