Theresa May

www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/18/un-criticises-uk-and-german-for-betraying-the-spirit-of-the-paris-climate-deal

Tegan, I am sure Greenpeace has been trying to stop both Arctic and Antarctic oil exploration.
In fact the Guardian has as well with its Keep it in the Ground mission.
So why does May want to use the idea?

I dont like the look of the link at 23.29pm on monday either.

Cover-ups are never good.
I hope it gets stopped.

Yes, that's the one. Not sure what it all means though.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/10/may-calls-on-argentina-to-lift-falklands-oil-exploration-restrictions

This what you meant, Tegan?

I am concerned about this.

www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/15/companies-house-plan-hide-tory-ministers-business-links-tom-watson-labour

Too many members of her government involved in this cover up.
It's not all to do with government. Lots of companies defraud people by going into liquidation, then setting up as another company, doing exactly the same thing.

I'm concerned about something I read in that she's having a dialogue with the Argentinians with regard to relaxing some sort of rules regarding drilling for oil round the Falklands [I need to find the article; sorry]. My first thought was that the laws are there to prevent oil spillage near the Antarctic.

I honestly don't know what people who voted Leave expected. They were told repeatedly that negotiations would take years. Apart from Ireland, there are so many other issues, each one needing a team of negotiators and attention to detail.

I think May has put the right people in charge of BREXIT. They argued for it, so it's right that they find a solution (if there is one).

She has put the 3 guys in the firing line. And given Leadsom the poisoned chalice of DEFRA - knee deep in issues that are affected by the EU (farming, animal welfare, food security etc etc) AL does not seem in any way equipped for this. There is a pattern here - you guys got us into this mess, now see if you can get us out. If they succeed she will, as PM, take the credit. If they fail she can throw them to the lions - their careers in politics will be well and truly over (including BJ).
And a thought to mull over:
If she initiates the 2 year exit timetable in the new year, it would take us through to January 2019 - just a year before the next general election campaign begins.
If you start to break down the problems of exiting some of the component parts are huge. The Irish border for instance. Currently there is an open border between N and S that suits everyone very well (no men with guns and you can do your shopping wherever you want). The borders at the ports are very lightly controlled (go by car and you will not be asked for passports or ID on leaving or entering) Go on foot and the same will probably apply in over 90% of cases. The Good Friday agreement and the other special arrangements between Ireland and UK are involved. Sounds like about 10 years around the negotiating table to me.

I think you are right about the possibility of people being satisfied dd. As Brexit was never defined it can't possibly please all.

I think people are making too many assumptions. Does the person who wrote that know that May's strategy is to set up Brexit to fail?

She's put three 'Brexiteers' in charge of exiting the EU. She's done everything by the book. What else could she do at this stage, without plunging the country into chaos?

Maybe BREXIT was never going to satisfy all the wishes of the people who voted for it.

Not sure if this has already been mentioned - on another forum that I read someone wrote "Theresa May's strategy of setting Brexit up to fail seems to be working."
What do you think?

In Hong Kong when I was there, public spaces were taken over on Sundays by tens of thousands of Phillipino maids. It was their day off and only chance to socialise I think. And judging by the size of flats vs families, many of them must have been sleeping in a cupboard or on the kitchen floor. They sat around doing each other's hair, sharing food etc. This was in the forecourts of huge banking buildings etc. I think they would have been kicked out of the parks, which were very, very small. I got told off for standing on a stone in a "park" once.

I'm told by my daughter (she has several friends who are musicians) that buskers are no longer allowed in our town centre and in some cases are having their instruments confiscated.

It is absolutely ridiculous that in some areas young people are prevented from assembling in groups of more than four - and disgusting that being homeless may give you a criminal record.

What is also very worrying is the increasing privatisation of formerly public spaces - which is happening a lot in central London. Quite large areas are policed by private security people who can remove people for, for instance, taking photographs, protesting, preaching, being filmed or filming, taking part in street performance and pavement art, etc. There are dozens of large privately owned so-called public spaces, including Broadgate, Canary Wharf, King's Cross Central, The Olympic Park, Paternoster Square, Tower Bridge, etc., etc.

This article in the Guardian warns against the growing number of privatised public spaces and the writer suggests that such spaces can become sterile and limit creativity and natural human communications.

www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/04/pops-privately-owned-public-space-cities-direct-action

t.co/A9omZQl5Bj

Manifesto Club's website.
Has your council done anything as silly as Hillingdon?

twitter.com/hashtag/ProtestPSPO?src=hash

Thank heavens for sensible people.
Hillingdon have said that gatherings of two or more people are illegal, so lots of protests over the weekend, by a group called the Manifesto Club.

ukhumanrightsblog.com/2016/08/08/the-environmental-law-foundation/

This may come in useful, particularly in those areas where May is trying to bribe people over fracking.

Apparently the UK breaks loads of environmemtal laws, but people do not challenge, because they cannot afford it, even though the Aarhus law says they should not be prevented from doing so because of costs.

Anyone lloking forward to their countryside being fracked so they can be given £10,000?

i1.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/160806-Nuclear-deterrent-disproval.jpg?resize=768%2C557

For those like Theresa May who think we need to replace Trident.

When May was Home Office secretary of state, she brought in the PSPO, The Public Spaces Protection Order.
If you want to see what some councils have done with it, read this. Hope you do not live in any of the dafter council areas.

www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/08/05/the-council-which-banned-sleeping

I'm staying indoors, windy and raining out there. Dark indoors too.
But I won't turn the lights on.

Is the Severn barrage going ahead? (10% of needs I think).

and me -going into the garden

Good idea, whitewave.
I'm switching off my computer now.

Hinckley will give us 7% more energy.

How about putting our energy into SAVING 7% + and then we wouldn't need to have all this kerfuffle or pay the extortionate rate for our electricity that is planned once Hinkley is up and running.

The links posted show that there are a number of reasons why many reputable people and publications are opposed to Hinkley, not least because of examples in other countries of huge delays, massive overs-spends and major safety concerns.

However, they need to get on with something because, as I understand it, within the next decade or so there will be a shortage of energy in this country. As others have said, I feel that money should be poured into expanding the many safer renewable energy projects that are currently being worked on.

jing Here you go - Hinkley Point. Just read it again yesterday.