UPDATE
Minutes after I posted this article, the ludicrous Jess Phillips published an article in the Guardian which could not have been better designed to prove my thesis. A number of people have posted comments on the Guardian article pointing this out, and they have all been immediately deleted by the Guardian. I just tried it myself and was also deleted. I should be grateful if readers could now also try posting comments there, in order to make a point about censorship on the Guardian.
Catching up on a fortnight’s news, I have spent five hours searching in vain for criticism of Simon Danczuk from prominent or even just declared feminists. The Guardian was the obvious place to start, but while they had two articles by feminist writers condemning Chris Gayle’s clumsy attempt to chat up a presenter, their legion of feminist columnists were entirely silent on Danczuk. The only opinion piece was strongly defending him.
This is very peculiar. The allegation against Danczuk which is under police investigation – of initiating sex with a sleeping woman – is identical to the worst interpretation of the worst accusation against Julian Assange. The Assange allegation brought literally hundreds, probably thousands of condemnatory articles from feminist writers across the entire range of the mainstream media. I have dug up 57 in the Guardian alone with a simple and far from exhaustive search. In the case of Danczuk I can find nothing, zilch, nada. Not a single feminist peep.
The Assange case is not isolated. Tommy Sheridan has been pursuing a lone legal battle against the Murdoch empire for a decade, some of it in prison when the judicial system decided his “perjury” was imprisonable but Andy Coulson’s admitted perjury on the Murdoch side in the same case was not. I personally witnessed in court in Edinburgh last month Tommy Sheridan, with no lawyer (he has no money) arguing against a seven man Murdoch legal team including three QCs, that a letter from the husband of Jackie Bird of BBC Scotland should be admitted in evidence. Bird was working for Murdoch and suggested in his letter that a witness should be “got out of the country” to avoid giving evidence. The bias exhibited by the leading judge I found astonishing beyond belief. I was the only media in the court.
Yet even though the Murdoch allegations against Sheridan were of consensual sexual conduct, Sheridan’s fight against Murdoch has been undermined from the start by the massive and concerted attack he has faced from the forces of feminism. Just as the vital messages WikiLeaks and Assange have put out about war crimes, corruption and the relentless state attack on civil liberties have been undermined by the concerted feminist campaign promoting the self-evidently ludicrous claims of sexual offence against Assange.
As soon as the radical left pose the slightest threat to the neo-con establishment, an army of feminists can be relied upon to run a concerted campaign to undermine any progress the left wing might make. The attack on Jeremy Corbyn over the makeup of his shadow cabinet was a classic example. It is the first ever gender equal shadow cabinet, but the entire media for a 96 hour period last September ran headline news that the lack of women in the “top” posts was anti-feminist. Every feminist commentator in the UK piled in.
Among the obvious dishonesties of this campaign was the fact that Defence, Chancellor, Foreign Affairs and Home Secretary have always been considered the “great offices of State” and the argument only could be made by simply ignoring Defence. The other great irony was the “feminist” attack was led by Blairites like Harman and Cooper, and failed to address the fact that Blair had NO women in any of these posts for a full ten years as Prime Minister.
But facts did not matter in deploying the organised feminist lobby against Corbyn.
Which is why it is an important test to see what the feminists, both inside and outside the Labour Party, would do when the leading anti-Corbyn rent-a-gob, Simon Danczuk, was alleged to have some attitudes to women that seem very dubious indeed, including forcing an ex-wife into non-consensual s&m and that rape allegation.
And the answer is …nothing. Feminists who criticised Assange, Sheridan and Corbyn in droves were utterly silent on the subject of Danczuk. Because the purpose of established and paid feminism is to undermine the left in the service of the neo-cons, not to attack neo-cons like Danczuk.
Identity politics has been used to shatter any attempt to campaign for broader social justice for everybody. Instead it becomes about the rights of particular groups, and that is soon morphed into the neo-con language of opportunity. What is needed, modern feminism argues, is not a reduction of the vast gap between rich and poor, but a chance for some women to become Michelle Mone or Ann Gloag. It is not about good conditions for all, but the removal of glass ceilings for high paid feminist journalists or political hacks.
Feminism has become the main attack tool in the neo-con ideological arsenal. I am sceptical the concept can be redeemed from this.
Fred: I would be grateful if you would comment on the main points in the Guardian article which Ba’al linked to :
• disposable incomes are now higher in Scotland than in London.
• workers north of the border are typically earning more than their English counterparts for the first time since records began.
• living standards after housing costs have grown faster in Scotland than in any English region since the crash.
• pay in Scotland has grown faster than any other nation or region in the UK over the last two decades.
• earnings growth in Scotland has also been stronger than England across all pay levels, other than for those at the very top.
Loony, this is a matter of legacy technology and investment in infrastructure.
AC was chosen for power distribution about a century ago because AC can be easily converted (transformed) between different voltages. It made electric power transmission viable, albeit with slight losses. DC transmission was known to be much closer to perfect efficiency, but the technology to transform it didn’t exist. Consequently, the grids that we now have work on AC.
The technology to transform DC has since been developed, but investing in new infrastructure is a significant cost.
Loony,
The UK grid like virtually every other one is HVAC. HVDC grids using semiconductor technology are what makes the difference if you read the article I linked. You don’t need to replace all the local HVAC grids – just build a low loss super HVDC grid to interconnect them all
HVDC links are slowly expanding. For example on links between UK and Europe but the capacity of these links is well below what is currently possible. Current link to France basically feeds the output of one of their nuclear reactors into the UK grid virtually 24 hours a day.
China seeing as you mentioned is one of the world leaders in HVDC rollout however they no longer have the longest HVDC line which is now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Madeira_HVDC_system
Higher voltage and even greater efficiency HVDC transmission lines are coming.
Clark – Ah so could this be the answer. It is too expensive and and as such it is cheaper to eat the line losses.
Squonk – If you do not replace all the HVAC grids then by definition you achieve nothing with regard to reducing aggregate losses. Your idea of a global super-grid simply facilitates the offshore production of electricity. Basically the same as the offshoring of manufacturing and human reproduction, both of which is working out so well.
If you look at natural gas then the current pipeline network shows what can be done. Yes it costs money and energy to transmit gas thousands of miles through the pipelines from wellhead to customer but that is exactly what is done. Russia seriously proposed extending their pipeline network to the USA via Alaska several years ago before shale gas (for now) reduced US import needs. If that had gone ahead my gas pipe in Scotland would have been physically connected (with no gaps) by a network of interconnecting pipes and storage all the way to New York – the long way round!
“I’ve been discussing 9/11 and explosive demolition on the 9/11 thread (where it belongs):
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-20/#comment-573446
Chomsky’s clever.”
Clever? Chomsky said it didn’t matter who did 9/11. I thought that odd.
Meanwhile the Governor Generals office to Scotland also know as the “Spies office” and “the Union Marketing office to Scotland” has come under fire.
It turns out that Mundell’s office has more staff and special advisors, than, the UK’s Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
The taxpayer paid a whopping £500,000 quid for public relations staff at the Spies office aka Scotland Office.
As staff at the UK Treasury impose cuts to other civil servant jobs, the Scotland Office appears to be growing exponentially. Last year the Tories achieved their worst election results in Scotland since 1865. David Mundell is the only Tory MP North of the border, one to many I say.
According to a FOI released by Westminster the Scotland Office has a budget of £9 million pounds, and has currently three full time special advisors. Remarkably the UK’s Department of Health, which is responsible for a budget around £120 billion pounds has less adivisors than the Scotland Office.
In December it emerged that Mundell’s department’s PR budget, had risen by a mind boggling 437% between 2011 and 2015/16.
The Scotland office is as most Scots suspect a huge Westminster propaganda machine aimed at promoting the Union all over Scotland.
Loony,
I didn’t say anything about not upgrading legacy grids over time. Just that there is no need to do that first. The HVDC grid interconnect points with the legacy HVAC grid look just like a bloody big power station to the old grid. As the AC/DC conversion is electronically regulated the HVDC feed can also provide extra stability to the older grid – especially useful if there is a lot of variable “green” power sources on the existing older grid.
My linked article was from the IEEE and they are the experts. They are saying we could do it right now.
SNP MSP Joan MacAlpine’s office vandalised by hooded thug.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/msp-joan-mcalpine-vows-not-to-be-intimidated-after-brick-attack-on-her-constituency-office.12555
Squonk – Natural gas is different to electricity. In general terms you can avoid the need to transport electricity by simply building and operating a power station near to demand centers.
As its name suggest natural gas occurs naturally and there is no correlation as to its location and its demand. There is a lot natural gas in Siberia – but not much demand. Therefore natural gas must be transported to demand centers. The only choices available are transport it by pipeline or by ship as LNG. Almost without exception it is cheaper to transport it by pipeline.
Transportation of gas is highly political. The situation in Ukraine is complicated by gas transmission issues. Syria is ultimately about gas – if Assad can be removed then perhaps a new regime will allow access for a Qatari pipeline to Europe. If Qatari gas can be piped to Europe then the position of Russia is weakened. Hence Russia supports the Assad regime. Qatar and opponents of Russia (US/EU) broadly support anti Assad forces.
The geo-political situation cannot be described as either good or stable. If gas causes so much trouble (which it does) when there is an LNG alternative available, just imagine how much more trouble would be caused by a global power grid where there is no alternative mode of transmission available.
By the way there have been several occasions recently in the middle of windy nights when UK wholesale electricity prices have gone negative. Yes they actually pay you to use it. The “base load” generators plus wind are providing more Gigawatts than the UK is actually consuming and there is not enough available capacity to move the excess far enough out of the UK where, in a different timezone, it would be very welcome. Or feed it into pumped storage as an alternative for that matter.
Loony,
Yes I’m well aware of the geo-political arguments against such a system. Once I’m world dictator I’ll order it built though as I won’t have to worry about these sort of issues!
Must say that I don’t see your point, Glenn, as Chomsky does a hatchet job on JFK, making no mention of his assassination or his role in peacefully solving the Cuban Missile Crisis in Failed States, while claiming he was behind the bloody takEover of Iraq by Saddam Hussein. (p.,144)
JFK’s role in settling the Cuban Missile Crisis was well established in The Kennedy Tapes, published around a decade before Chomsky’s book, and there is no mention of JFK being involved in Saddam’s coup in either Gordon Corera’s The Art of Betrayal or Con Coughlin’s Saddam; The Secret Life.
Chomsky just uses convenient bad sources, lies, and avoidance to make his case against the only President that the CIA managed to assassinate.
Squonk. Do you not think it would be more sensible to firstly upgrade one national grid system just to see how that works out both in terms of cost and technical efficiency prior to embarking on a global experiment.
The IEEE are experts on electrical engineering. They are not experts regarding geo-political conflict. As I explained briefly in my previous post a lot of current conflicts/disputes have their ultimate origin in energy issues.
The UK (and other western countries) support a deranged regime in Riyadh for the sole reason that they control a lot of oil.
A global power grid would, over time, likely lead to the migration of electricity generation to low cost centers. Quite by accident you could end up artificially creating a Saudi Arabia of electricity.
Failure to appreciate (or to even acknowledge) the broader implications of technical proposals is precisely what makes entities like the IEEE so dangerous.
1979 Devolution Referendum – 52% said YES Westminster said NO on the 1st March 1979 the People were asked this question? ‘Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect ? ‘
Scotland voted in favor of devolution by 52% to 48%
However before the election took place SDP, MP George Cunningham had proposed that 40 % of the electorate must vote Yes, thus effectively counting abstainers, the dead, foreign students who had left the country as No voters. 32.9% of the electorate had voted Yes, only 7.1% short of the 40%. of the electorate who had voted 52% voted Yes 1,230,937 opposed to the 1,113502 who had voted No.
At the time of the referendum there was 62 Scottish MP’s, 43 of them voted Yes and 19 voted No.
Had the same conditions been imposed on the 1975 EEC referendum, Scotland would have left the EEC.
The Act was repealed the following month (March 1979) despite Scottish MP’s voting 43 to 19 against repeal.
This is the first time in a democracy that the decision of the voters who turned out has been over turned. Even in a third world African Nation, democracy is not destroyed to the extent it was in 1979 by Labour Government.
Who after years of stalling on the 1974 manifesto promise to hold devolution referendum’s in Scotland and Wales imposed this unfair, unjust ruling that was instigated purely to rig the referendums to interfere with the right of the Scottish and Welsh people to govern themselves.
Fred: I would be grateful if you would comment on the main points in the Guardian article which Ba’al linked to :
^
“Unionism was not enforced.
Nationalists pretend Scotland was colonised by England but the fact is Scotland stood shoulder to shoulder with England and together they colonised much of the rest of the world.”
____________________
Depends who you mean Fred to the rich and powerful who lost much on the Darien Scheme, which England helped to scupper, the deal was a good one as they’d receive compensation.
However to the common man the deal mean’t and brought nothing but the dissolution of Scotland’s parliament.
To the powerful who would gain this was talked of as finance due to the country, but for the ordinary people this was simple political bribery to purchase their independence.
John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll and James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry represented the government and manipulated parliamentary debates into an environment of Member’s personal interests.
The Union was agreed and the commissioners for Scotland chosen by the Queen. The resulting treaty of twenty five articles retained the independence of Scotland’s legal and religious systems, while systems of coinage, taxation, sovereignty, trade, parliament and flag would become one.
The first article was accepted in Edinburgh in November 1706 and the last in January 1707.
Scotland’s Parliament was dissolved in the April and independence was over.
http://www.scotclans.com/scotland/scottish-history/scottish-unification/1707-union/
Loony,
“is precisely what makes entities like the IEEE so dangerous.”
And here’s me thinking that errant political leaders cause the danger. But now I know it’s the IEEE! And I thought they were just optimists…
They should be locked up as dangerous grid terrorists at once!
Squonk – Who gets paid to use electricity in the UK? I don’t. Do you?
From time to time you can buy bulk power at a negative price, but the only people doing this are those that operate in the full knowledge that they can sell it on for a positive number. This is simply a product of the subsidy regime bumping up against technical realities. It is best explained by the old adage of “Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive”
RoS: “SNP MSP Joan MacAlpine’s office vandalised by hooded thug.”
Wonder if Fred wears a hoodie?
Re my last comment Fred I do however agree that Scotland, and Scots for a time under the Union flourished, Scots merchants became wealthy, from trade done in the British colonies such as the USA (tobacco) and Jamaica (sugar). Infact the Jamaican flag is based on the Scottish Saltire.
One of the most common names amongst Jamaicans, believe it or not is Campbell. Scots also shed their fair share of blood for the Union, in the process, none more so than in the Thin Red Line.
On the enforcement of union, it’s certainly arguable that it wasn’t enforced. By force, that is. There’s more than a suggestion that extensive bribery, and/or the promise of debt cancellation, was central to the process, and I see that Sinclair, 9th Earl of Caithness was against union. Subsequently, the Hanoverian status quo post was rigorously enforced. By force, and, indeed predominantly English force. It could be argued that this was a dynastic war. But it mobilised the festering dislike of the Highlands, as they were then, before the white settlers took over, for London rule.
Loony,
Actually there are still some industrial end users in the UK big enough to be able to make use of extra power and some do get paid to use it when rates go negative. Some water supply systems are an example. They also get paid to supply electricity to the grid from their own emergency generators if supply margin is critically low.
During a supply crisis a few years ago emergency generators all started up at various BT buildings. You could hear them walking past.
This however Fred, may well be the real reason the Act of Union came about.
Paid to Vote Yes? Year 1707, Act of Union The following men are listed as being paid for their vote . The year 1707, why the vote, the “Act of Union” It seems politicians have not changed much in the last 300 years.
1 ~ Lord Anstruther, Sir William Anstruther was paid 300 pounds to vote “yes” on The Act of Union 1707. He voted yes. The 300 pounds received is today worth around 42,000 pounds.
2 ~ The Duke of Athol, James Murry was allegedly paid 1,000 pounds to vote yes for The Act of Union in 1707, but today’s listings show he voted “NO”.
3 ~ Earl of Balcarres – Cohn Lindsay is said to have been paid 500 pounds for his vote “yes” in 1707, vote on The Act of Union. This would be worth about 70,000 pounds in today’s money. He did vote yes.
4 ~ Lord Banff – George Ogilvy was paid to vote yes on The Act of the Union. He did vote yes.
5 ~ Mr. John Campbell was paid 200 pounds to vote yes. This amount today is worth about 30,000 pounds. He voted yes.
6 ~ Patrick Coultrain Provost of Wigton was paid 25 pounds. Roughly 4,000 pounds today to vote yes. Not sure of his vote.
7 ~ Lord Cesnock now Polwarth received 50 pounds, today this would be about 7,000 pounds. Not sure of his vote.
8 ~ The Earl of Cromarty – Sir George MacKenzie is said to have been paid 300 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He voted “yes”. The 300 pounds would be worth roughly 42,000 pounds today.
9 ~ Major Cunningham of Eckatt allegedly received 100 pounds, today worth around 14,000 pounds for his “yes” vote. Not sure of his vote, yes or no.
10 ~ The Earl of Dunmoor, William Murray is said to have been paid 200 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He did vote “yes”. 200 pounds today is worth about 28,000 pounds.
11 ~ The Earl of Eglington, Alexander Seton Montgomerie is reputed to have been paid 200 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes.
12 ~ The Lord Elibank, Alexander Murray is said to have been paid 50 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He did vote yes. To that 50 pounds would be worth about 7500 pounds.
13 ~ The Earl of Findlator, James Ogilvy was supposed to have been paid 100 pounds or about 14,000 pounds in today’s money to vote yes on The Act of Union. He voted yes.
14 ~ Lord Forbes, William Forbes is reputed to have been paid 50 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes.
15 ~ The Earl of Forfar, Archibald Douglas said to have been paid 100 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes.
16 ~ Lord Fraser, Charles Fraser said to have been paid 100 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He did vote yes. That 100 pounds would be worth about 14,000 pounds today.
17 ~ The Earl of Glencaird, William Cunningham is said to have been paid 100 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union, but it is shown he voted NO.
18 ~ Lord Preston Hall, reputedly paid 200 pounds for his “yes” vote to The Act of Union. Not sure of his vote, but the 200 pounds would be worth about 28,000 pounds today.
19 ~ The Earl of Kintore, Sir John Keith was allegedly paid 200 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He did vote yes.
20 ~ The Earl of Marchmont, Patrick Hume is said to have been paid 1,104 pounds for his “yes” vote. Today this would be around 154,000 pounds. He did vote yes to the union.
21 ~ Sir Kenneth Mackenzie, said to have been paid 100 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes for The Act of Union.
22 ~ The Duke of Montrose, James Graham, reputedly paid 200 pounds to vote yes on The Act of Union. He did vote yes.
23 ~ John Muir, Provost of Ayr, was to receive 100 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He did vote yes.
24 ~` Lord Ormiston, John Cockburn, reputedly paid 200 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes.
25 ~ The Duke of Roxburgh, John Ker was said to have been paid 500 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. This would be worth around 70,000 pounds today. He did vote yes.
26 ~ The Earl of Seafield, James Ogilvy, said to have been paid 490 pounds for his “yes” vote. He voted yes.
27 ~ Sir William Sharp, reportedly paid 300 pounds for a “yes” vote on The Act of Union. This would be worth about 42,000 pounds today. Not sure how he voted, but a John Sharp of Hoddam voted NO.
28 ~ Mr. Stewart of Castle Stewart, this was William Stewart, was to be paid 300 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes to the union. The 300 pounds is worth about 42,000 pounds in today’s money.
29 ~ Marquis of Tweedale, John Hay, reputedly paid 1,000 pounds for his “yes” vote to the Union. He did vote yes to The Act of Union. The 1,000 pounds would be worth about 140,000 pounds today.
30 ~ Mr. Alexander Wedderburn was to receive 75 pounds for his “yes” votes. Not sure if he voted yes or no. 75 pounds today would be worth around 11,000 pounds.
31 ~ The Duke of Queenberry, James Douglas, reportedly was to receive 12, 325 pounds. This would be worth about 2,000,000 pounds today.
Squonk – I am not sure that all members of the IEEE should be locked up – some probably would be a good idea.
As an organization they should be held to account regarding the reasonably predictable consequences of their recommendations. They most definitely should not be allowed to take refuge behind a myriad of equations and technical drawings.
Politicians are mostly fools whose main talent is PR. Their only policies are to pander to their own interests and egos. Most of what they notionally implement is based on the recommendations of experts. It is our collective failure to hold these experts to account that has resulted in many of the problems we currently face.
It is not that long ago that expert theologians were quite certain that some people were witches. Judicial experts were equally certain of the appropriate way to deal with witches. Expert physicians were able to list all diseases that could be cured by blood letting. In more recent times the IEEE were certain that the UK should have a generation system based almost exclusively on coal. Within the span of a human life the IEEE and associated experts became certain that burning coal will destroy the planet.
The 1963 coup in Iraq was certainly stage-managed by the CIA (plus MI6) while JFK was president. What — if any — role JFK may have played in the coup is unclear.
“Fred: I would be grateful if you would comment on the main points in the Guardian article which Ba’al linked to :”
Why? He didn’t comment on the links I posted he just called me names and changed the subject.
re chomsky on 911 It was both a really stupid and suspicious thing to say.
This PDF (safe) is on my reading list
PLEASE NOTE I haven’t had to time to read/validate it yet – so don’t shoot the messenger 🙂
“Noam Chomsky is and always has been A SPOOK”
http://mileswmathis.com/chom.pdf
“Wonder if Fred wears a hoodie?”
Nasty scum.
Fred : Why? He didn’t comment on the links I posted he just called me names and changed the subject.
OK, What do you think about these points taken from a Guardian article?
• disposable incomes are now higher in Scotland than in London.
• workers north of the border are typically earning more than their English counterparts for the first time since records began.
• living standards after housing costs have grown faster in Scotland than in any English region since the crash.
• pay in Scotland has grown faster than any other nation or region in the UK over the last two decades.
• earnings growth in Scotland has also been stronger than England across all pay levels, other than for those at the very top.