Category: Travel

The Week

Conversations can go in a strange direction. It’s well and good to be sceptical. I mean, questioning newspaper headlines, social media hot shots and politician’s pontifications. Lies are common enough, but everything is not a lie. My experience is that most people are honest, straightforward, and reasonable. So, yes, be sceptical but don’t think everything is a conspiracy. The evidence simply doesn’t point that way.

How did this chat kick-off? Surprise, surprise, a conversation about COVID-19. There’s no doubt that a lot of big mistakes were made in the last few years. Balance that fact with the dedication and hard work people put in to mitigating the pandemic and the suffering of those who lost loved ones. It was a crisis that most of us had never experienced. The pains and shocks were real.

When I hear someone say – it wasn’t a real pandemic, you know. Following up with – do you know who was funding the chaos? That question left me with a blank expression. Then an answer, as if this confident speaker had discovered something no one else knew – it was Bill Gates. Although I’d heard this conspiracy theory before it still left me doing a shocked double-take. How can someone be so convinced of such utter nonsense?

I’m a liberal, so I question those who follow a crowd for the sake of following the crowd. On top of that way of thinking, free speech is to be cherished. If my judgment is that the world of conspiracy theories is not new and is just part a colourful world, am I ignoring the harm that untrue utter nonsense can do? It’s a difficult dilemma. When someone gets sucked into conspiracy thinking they become chained to lies but they freely take-up those chains. Is it harmful for people to buy crystals or silver foil hats to protect themselves from the evils of 5G[1]? It certainly is nutty. Maybe, they have a right to be nutty.

Switching subjects. Thundery skies, dusty, a sweaty 25 degrees C and bright shafts of intense sunlight. Lanes full of cars, bikes, buses, trucks, and vans. The writhing unpleasantness that is the M25 motorway. That’s too mild a word. As the song by Chris Rea goes – The Road to Hell[2]. A song made for the M25 that never grows old.

Yesterday, hell was a bad place to be (Not what AC/DC wrote). Stop and go. Stop and go. It was a self-imposed torture sitting in lines of traffic on the country’s longest moving car park. Moving only as an afterthought. I did the 60 miles between the towns of Reigate and Hatfield. That’s almost 180 degrees around London’s circular motorway. From South to North. If it’s not the noisy concrete sections, then it’s the countless number of congested lanes under the Heathrow flight path that are top of my worst list. Grinding slow, mind numbing and an indictment of our failure to take the environment seriously. Transport policy is in a mess.

What’s crazy is our country’s response to this everyday transport pain. Make it bigger and wider. Carve out more of the countryside and cover it with concrete, steel and tarmac. I’m talking about the current work on the A3/M25 interchange at Wisley[3]. Heavy machinery has dug out trees and shifted massive amounts of soil to shape the land to the demands of the internal combustion engine. Add a lane. Fill up a lane. Add another lane. Fill another lane. Build a bridge but never bridge the gap. That been the way of the last 30-years and more. A monster that just keeps eating up more land.

[1] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cancer-myths/do-mobile-phones-cause-cancer

[2] https://youtu.be/OcW-BSEB3ng

[3] https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-east/m25-junction-10/

Reform

The words: “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away….” – who doesn’t know those words? They come to mind in my thoughts of the last few years.

I caught a “Have I Got a Bit More News for You” on TV[1] last night. I think it was only from May last year but the world it described was miles from the situation of today. By the way, I must be of a certain age given that I’m still watching TV. I put the iPhone and iPad down for ten minutes. The box in the living room still has a place even if the day they pension-off Ian Hislop and Paul Merton can’t be far off.

Fine, there was some enduring themes that just keep giving and giving. Personalities pop-up with new roles even if reputations were long since trashed. What’s moving on is that feeling of being in a post-COVID world and the good bits of the Elizabethan era. The signs saying keep a distance from the next person are fading. Discussion about QEII is now about memorials and statues.

In less than a decade, the global reputation of the UK has seen some remarkable turbulence. I’m not being romantic about some time when everything worked smoothly. It never did. Governance is a difficult business. Turbulence is a permanent feature even if it doesn’t always star in the everyday News.

What should be enduring is a frankness and ability to acknowledge when mistakes have been made. To reflect and learn from experience is a wonderful human ability. It likely that if this didn’t exist then neither would we. Every step forward that’s made is often on the backs of many failures.

The pre-2016 era, what we could call a time relative civility, fraternity, and sanity, was not immune from turbulence. What was better was the mechanisms available to address that turbulence. The space available for dialogue was much bigger.

Brexit, for our country has been the biggest blunder we have has made in a lifetime. As predicted, Brexit’s reality has made the UK a paradise for speculators, spivs, and smugglers. Brexit has imposed extra costs and border restrictions on goods. It’s wrecked freedom of movement. It’s encouraged petty finger pointing on every major difficult subject.

Brexit pledges are now broken with such regularity that it’s impossible to count them all. Whether it’s a downgrading of the environment or attacks on employment rules or fake political storms they are too numerous to mention.  

This blog started in a long time ago in a country far, far away, or at least it feels that way. My view remains that we need to be at the heart of Europe to succeed in the future. To do that we need to make some big changes at home. I’m no great fan of Rory Stewart[2] but he’s right to engage with populism and take on the need for constitutional change.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b00877q4/have-i-got-a-bit-more-news-for-you

[2] https://www.barbican.org.uk/whats-on/2023/event/an-evening-with-rory-stewart

Learn by testing

Back in the mid-1980s, aircraft system integration was part of my stock-in-trade. Project managing the integration of a safety critical system into a large new helicopter. It was a challenging but rewarding job. Rewarding in that there was a successful new aircraft at the end of the day.

For big and expensive development projects there are a great number of risks. The technical ones focus on functionality, performance, and safety. The commercial ones focus on getting the job done on-time and at a reasonable price. Project managers are in the middle of that sandwich.

Naturally, the expectations of corporate managers in the companies that take on these big challenges is that systems and equipment integration can be done to the book. Quickly and without unexpected outcomes. The practical reality is that people must be well prepared and extremely lucky not to encounter setbacks and resets. It’s not just test failures and anomalies that must be investigated and addressed. Systems integrators are working on shifting sand. The more that is known about overall aircraft flight test performance and customers preferences so technical specifications change.

With cockpit display systems, in the early days, that was often feedback from customer pilots who called for changes to the colour, size or shape of the symbology that was displayed on their screens. What can seem a simple post-flight debriefing remark could then turn into a huge change programme.

That was particularly true of safety critical software-based systems. Equipment suppliers may have advanced their design to a state where much of the expensive design validation and verification was complete. Then a system integrator comes up with a whole set of change that need to be done without additional costs and delivered super-fast. Once a flight test programme gets going it can’t be stopped without serious implications. It’s a highly dynamic situation[1].

I’m writing this blog in reaction to the news coming from Vertical Aerospace. Their VX4 prototype aircraft was involved in an flight test incident that did a lot of damage[2]. There’s no doubt this incident can provide data to feedback into the design, performance, and safety of future versions of their aircraft[3]. Integrating complex hardware and software is hard but the rewards are great.

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution.” – Aristotle

[1] https://youtu.be/Gb_eta4mZkc

[2] https://evtolinsights.com/2023/08/vertical-aerospace-identifies-propeller-as-root-cause-of-august-9-vx4-incident/

[3] https://investor.vertical-aerospace.com/news/news-details/2023/Vertical-Aerospaces-VX4-Programme-Moves-to-the-Next-Phase/default.aspx

NATS

A “technical issue” has caused UK National Air Traffic Services, NATS to impose air traffic flow restrictions[1]. They did not close UK airspace. This was not a repeat of the volcanic ash events of early 2010. Going from a fully automated system to a fully manual system had the dramatic impact that might be expected. The consequences, on one of the busiest weekends in the holiday calendar were extremely significant. Huge numbers of people have had their travel disrupted. Restricting the air traffic system ensured that aviation safety was maintained. The costs came to the UK’s air traffic handling capacity and that meant delays and cancelled flights.

Although the failures that caused the air traffic restriction were quickly resolved the time to recover from this incident meant it had a long tail. Lots of spoilt holidays and messed up travel plans.

It is normal for an Air Traffic Service (ATS) provider to undertake a common cause failure analysis. This is to identify multiple failures that may result from one event. So, the early public explanations coming from NATS of the causes of this major incident are surprising. Across the globe, contingency planning is a requirement for ATS. The requirement for the development, promulgation and application of contingency plans is called up in international standards, namely ICAO Annex 11.

So, the story that a single piece of flight data brought down the traffic handling capacity of a safety related system, to such a low level, is difficult to accept. It’s evident that there is redundancy in the systems of NATS, but it seems to be woefully inadequate when faced with reality. ATS comprise of people, procedures, and systems. Each has a role to play. Safety of operations comes first in priority and then air traffic handling capacity. What we know about even highly trained people and data entry is that human error is an everyday issue. System design and implementation needs to be robust enough to accommodate this fact. So, again attributing such a highly disruptive event to one set of incorrect data inputs does not chime with good practice or basic aviation safety management. It is concerning that one action can bring down a major network in this way.

EUROCONTROL would have had been sent a “rogue” flight plan in the same way as UK NATS. Brussels does not seem to have had the problems of the UK.

It is early days in respect of any detailed technical investigation. Drawing conclusions, whatever is said in public by senior officials may not be the best thing to do.

Calls for compensation have a good basis for proceeding. The holiday flight chaos across Europe comes down to one single failure, if initial reports are correct. That can not be acceptable. The incident left thousands stranded abroad with high costs to pay to get home.

Before privatisation, there was a time when the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), ran the nation’s air traffic services[2]. It had a poor reputation at the time. I remember a popular newspaper cartoon saying – and now for some clowns from the CAA. They were entertaining delayed passengers.

UK NATS has done much good work to manage a safe expansion in air traffic and address many changes in technology, it would be a shame if this sad incident marks a decline in overall network performance.

NOTE 1: And this topical cartoon from the Daily Mail in April 2002: https://www.pinterest.es/pin/497577458805993023/

NOTE 2: A report on the incident is to be sent to the regulator, UK CAA on Monday, 6th September. Transport secretary to see Nats’ ATC meltdown report next week | Travel Weekly

NOTE 3: The likelihood of one in 15 million sounds like a low number but it’s not “incredibly rare” by any definition. Certainty when there are around 6000 flights a day in the UK. A duplicate error occurring is a basic error that could be anticipated.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66644343

[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01309/

More H2

I think this came at me both ways as a schoolboy. Both from chemistry and physics. In our 1960s chemistry lab, Bunsen burners, flasks and array of hazardous substances were the norm. Physics seemed more cerebral. Still, the hands-on side of teaching still meant some practical experimentation. That’s the part that most engrossed me.

Electrolysis starred in two mostly harmless experiments. The colourful one was about copper sulfate[1] and the other was about splitting water into its component parts. Getting Oxygen (O2) and Hydrogen (H2) gas by electrolysis[2] is mighty simple and one of those wonders of nature.

Electrolysis is a way of producing carbon-free Hydrogen from renewable and nuclear resources. Despite the apparent straightforwardness of the process, it’s quite tricky to industrialise on a large scale. One key factor to the future use of Hydrogen is getting the cost per Kg down[3].

Let’s presume that this is a solvable problem and cheap and plentiful gas supplies will be up and running by 2030. That’s not so far off given its 2023. There will surely be a market for ample supplies given the multitude of applications for Hydrogen. Will it be a global market? It needs to be.

It’s a talking point. Hydrogen fuel is one of the viable fuels for aviation. Generating power and returning it to water in the atmosphere is an attractive idea. The process meets carbon-free ambitions even if it does have lots of complications.

On average, a Boeing 737-800 uses about 5,000 lbs (2268 kg) of conventional fuel per flight hour[4]. Cryogenic Hydrogen has lower energy density. That means much more on-board fuel storage will be needed to go as far or fly as long as a current day common commercial jet aircraft.

Designing an aircraft configuration that can accommodate these facts can be done but what of the space that remains for the payload? As it does today, on-board fuel storage will need to meet stringent safety requirements.

Adding this up, it may not be the technical issues that make this difficult. Although they are difficult the technical issues can be addressed. However, will the overall package that results be economically viable? If costs are increased by a factor of, say 5, will this provide for a commercial air transport system that is like the current one?

We may have to accept that carbon-free flying reverts to the 1960s[5]. What I mean is that, instead of low-cost flights hopping here, there, and everywhere for £100, the future maybe one where long-haul flying is a relative luxury or an expensive business need.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zgn8b82/revision/3

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zv2yb82/revision/1

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1220812/global-hydrogen-production-cost-forecast-by-scenario/

[4] http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel.htm

[5] https://www.skyscanner.com.au/news/airlines/the-golden-age-of-plane-travel-what-flying-was-like-in-the-1950s-and-1960s-compared-to-now

First Flight

I didn’t have a gap year. That’s a year a student takes off their studies. It was a fashionable rite of passage. These days a gap year is often associated with an opportunity to gain extra skills and experiences to add to a CV. Going back to the early 1980s, after all we still had local authority educational grants, a gap year was associated with travel and adventure.

What I did have was employment. As a sponsored student, I had an income whilst working and a bursary. So, although my student grant was highly variable. My parents were self-employed. I was reasonably independent and well off for the average undergraduate student. That was a benefit of being in demand in the engineering world. Not only that but in the recession struck West Midlands our student cost of living was within our means. With a care in spending and cash-and-carry[1] shopping it was possible to put money aside.

It was August 1981, when I took my first passenger flight from London Heathrow (LHR). It wasn’t a modest hop over to France or a Greek sunny beach but a Pan Am transatlantic international adventure to Seattle (SEA). Long-haul, a long way in a classic Boeing 747. Flight PA 123 out and PA 122 back.

This trip came to mind yesterday lunchtime as I was sitting in a stark modern Starbucks coffee shop. Yes, there was a time when such places were exciting, special, new and off-beat.

In a way this journey did enhance my education studies. One part of the trip was a visit to a steel factory in Los Angeles (Plessey Precision Metals). Now, that was educational. The boss who showed me around was forthcoming about where their labour came from and the working conditions.

Four of us Coventry students went on this great American adventure. Basically, the plan was to arrive and depart from Seattle but to drive up and down the West Coast. It was a fly /drive package. By sharing the driving and staying in the cheapest motels we travelled a long way for our money. In massive contrast to the present day, the pound – dollar was at about 2.4.

42 years ago, the world was a different place. Although, breakfast at Dennys probably hasn’t changed. It was the year President Ronald Reagan sacked thousands of striking air-traffic controllers when they ignored his order to return to work. What a year to be flying.

Driving an AMC Concord[2] well over 6000 miles our trip was non-stop. A day here, a day there and, if my memory serves me right, a night sleeping in the car. That was in the mist over San Francisco.

Mount St. Helens had erupted in March 1980. We drove the rental car as close as we could to the areas of devastation to have a look for ourselves. It was dramatic. Trees felled like matchsticks. Grey dirt and dust covering the land. Signs of the eruption stretched far and wide.

If you can marshal the time and the money, have some good friends and are 21 years old, I can’t think of a better recommendation.

[1] That’s when my taste for peanut butter developed.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Concord

ULEZ 2

It’s not the first time I’ve experienced poor air quality. It’s a wonderful city but, on certain days of the year, the air in the German city Cologne is unpleasant. It can be stagnated, stale and dirty when the weather’s hot and there’s no wind blowing.

It was compulsory. You get a fine if you don’t have one. I remember getting a green environmental badge for my car[1]. This is a scheme by which the most polluting vehicles are banned from the central city. Introduced in 2008, initially vehicles were not banned but everyone had to have a coloured badge. These were red, yellow, or green depending upon the type of vehicle. Now, only green environmental badged vehicles are permitted to enter a prescribed city zone.

Yesterday, I drove from Reigate in Surrey to Croydon. Purley Way in fact. That’s a part of the main A23 road in the London Borough of Croydon. I now wonder at my sanity in doing so. The traffic was abominable. Purley Way is a mass of shopping warehouses, tarmac, and suburban sprawl.

What’s visible is the provisions for the introduction of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)[2] at the end of the month. Cameras and signs. This doesn’t ban dirty vehicles from London, but it does charge them a £12.50 daily to drive into or within the ULEZ zone. 

So, here are two different approaches to addressing poor air quality. The German one doesn’t require extensive infrastructure, but it does mean additional policing. The London one is more permissive but at a price. Collecting money from polluting vehicle owners to pay for cameras, enforcement, and publicity. Both require signage to warn drivers of the zone boundaries. Both have their detractors who object to any kind of restrictions.

To me, the problem of poor air quality can not be put on the back burner. You don’t need sensors and precision measurement to know that the problem is huge, real, and persistent. Even in my small Surrey town, the marked difference between days of traffic jams and empty roads is so evident. In the middle of COVID, I walked the High Street of Reigate, and the air was as clear and fresh as a Cornish village in winter. This week, with road works underway the town has been one big traffic jam and breathing the steamy air walking the pavement is not nice. Health suffers and it’s not just the environmental damage.

The utility of the internal combustion engine has seduced our communities. Now, the balance between the benefits of driving and the freedom it once symbolised has tipped. The sheer mass of vehicles in urban environments and their daily impact is so damaging that restrictions must be mandatory. There’s no turning back.

In Cologne, these changes are particularly pertinent. It could be said that the whole ball started rolling in that city. In the district of Deutz there’s a monument to Nicolaus August Otto[3]. He was a German engineer who successfully developed the internal combustion engine.

[1] https://www.stadt-koeln.de/leben-in-koeln/klima-umwelt-tiere/luft-umweltzone/die-koelner-umweltzone

[2] https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone

[3] https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/125th-anniversary-of-the-death-of-nicolaus-august-otto

Local air

There are cases of synergy. That’s where aviation and local authorities have a mutual interest. This often centres around the economic prosperity of an area. Relationships can be complex, difficult, and fraught with volatility. There are plenty of housing and industrial estates that cover the ground of former airfields. Like the railways that closed under Beeching’s axe[1].

Public interest was dominant 50-years ago, but privatisation dramatically changed relationships. Sustaining profitability through good times and bad have proven to be more than some locations could support. There’s so many combinations and permutations but fewer and fewer active commercial airfields in the UK.

London Manston Airport is an airport that only just clings on to existence. In 2013, the Welsh Government acquired Cardiff Airport. So, some aviation facilities have returned to public ownership and run as an arm’s length business. A few airports are given support to ensure connections exists between remote parts of the UK. Highlands and Islands Airports is an example.

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is coming. This is the extensive use of electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft (eVTOLs). AAM is an innovative concept that will require Vertiports and integration into busy airspace. To make the economics work a lot of routes will be in, and over urban areas.

My view is that AAM will only succeed in the UK if aviation and local authorities come together and embrace it. That is going to be a massive challenge whatever national government does.

In the case of local authorities with a mission of protecting the interests of residents this has often meant objecting to aviation developments. I go back to proposals of 30-years ago to make Redhill Aerodrome a feeder to London Gatwick Airport[2]. This was well and truly shot down by local interests. In fact, rightly so given the complex twists and turns it would have made in the airspace.

AAM needs the harmonisation of standards to ensure interoperability anywhere in the country. There are one or two UK local authorities that are already embracing the potential opportunities of this new form of flying. Coventry City Council is taking on the challenge[3]. It’s welcoming the development of the ground infrastructure for “air taxis” and delivery drones.

By the way, my view is that introducing the subject as “flying cars” or “air taxis” is not a good idea. This creates images from science fiction that may not resemble the reality of these new air services.

[1] https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/our-history/making-the-connection/dr-beechings-axe/

[2]https://john-w-vincent.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/bf3ec-clear_for_take_off.pdf

[3] https://www.coventry.gov.uk/news/article/4232/world-first-hub-for-flying-taxis-air-one-opens-in-coventry-uk-heralding-a-new-age-of-zero-emission-transport

ULEZ

Londoners in all Boroughs need clearer air to breathe

Oh yes. London has an air quality problem. It’s not the only city by any means. My recent trip to Cologne left me in no doubt that cities must address this problem. It’s an insidious hazard. It’s not so – in your face – as noise or water pollution. We’ve this human capacity to normalise bad things. Much to our detriment. Air quality becomes most evident when you move from a place of bad air quality to a place of good air quality. Then the difference becomes acutely noticeable.

Last weekend, I was in the West Country. Way down the A303. The difference is quite striking.

Last evening, I was traveling on the Tube to get to the Albert Hall. The difference is quite striking.

Whatever you may think about the implementation of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in London, there’s a need to do something drastic.

Expanding ULEZ across all London Boroughs from 29 August 2023 is getting a lot of political attention. No doubt some of this is whipped up purely to punish the Labour Mayor. However, the dilemma is clear. Penalising a lot of people who are not directly feeling the discomfort of poor air quality is inevitably going to cause a stink.

Now, we shouldn’t get disproportionately agitated. That fact is that poor air quality is killing people is not in question. The fact that a small fraction of vehicle owners will be made to pay is not in question[1]. The balancing act between reliving an unacceptable situation of harm and causing minimal economic pain is a tricky one. It would be a tricky one for whoever was in power.

My view is that measure that force people to change their vehicles should be accompanied with a practical scheme to compensate them for significant financial losses. Or that the emissions thresholds set should take account of the natural turn-over of vehicles that takes place in normal years. The political controversy of the moment is much because of the speed of change and its coincidence with a cost-of-living crisis that is very real.

Londoners in all Boroughs need clearer air to breathe. But London doesn’t sit in isolation. Afterall the Borough boundaries do not track urban boundaries. Parts of adjoining areas are equally urbanised, and the air doesn’t know about administrative boundaries. The M25 motorway doesn’t do much for air quality, that’s for sure. So, hearing of the London Mayor doing battle with adjoining areas is a bit sad. Solutions need to be negotiated with all impacted parties regardless of the politics.

By the way, I’m not impressed with communications from Transport for London. I clicked on an e-mail sent to me on the above subject and this came up: “This link has expired. Please contact the sender of the email for more information.” Thanks a lot.

[1] More than 4 out of 5 vehicles meet emissions standards, but if you use a petrol vehicle over 16 years old, or a diesel vehicle over 6 years old, you need to check it.

Dog Days

It’s only when I looked this up that I realised how apt it was. Summer is upon us. Today, it’s not so hot, in-fact it’s been raining. Welcome rain. My garden looks fresher for it. These are the days of summer heat in southern England. They are known as “dog days”. It’s the period between early July and early September. These summer days can be delightful, but they can be uncomfortable, a source of fatigue and a time of unexpected thunderstorms. What I learned was that the term “dog days” comes from the appearance in the sky of the dog star, known as Sirius[1]. 

We are getting into the dog days of summer in terms of parliamentary time too. The House of Commons recess dates for this session of the UK Parliament are that it rises on 20 July 2023 and returns on 4 Sept 2023. That would be a useful time for the current Conservative Government consider calling a General Election. I can hear their death rattle so I suspect they will not.

Last evening, I caught a debate on the Parliamentary TV channel. The main business was the second reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. It’s a truly hopeless and appallingly badly drafted legislative proposal[2]. That’s when the thought of “dog days” came into my mind. The term has more than one meaning. My thought here was that we have truly entered a period of stagnation in common sense The current Conservative Government is tabling dreadfully ill thought-out and unsafe proposals that suppresses free-speech and will become a charter for lawyers to paw over for years.

The timing of this Parliamentary debate, given what is happening in Israeli-occupied West Bank, is terrible. A wise government minister would have pulled it.

It never has been ethical policy for a government minister, to supress democratic discussion. This bill would gag local government and other public bodies[3]. It’s poorly drafted text that will have a detrimental impact at domestic and international level.

The summer can bring drought. What we have here is a drought of political imagination, a cavalcade of populist babble that concentrates power and an unethical embarrassment. I remember the days when throughout the country people and democratically elected public bodies opposed apartheid. This bill, had it been in place at that time, would have outlawed such opposition.

A well drafted law that addresses the issues associated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement might have been welcomed. A political consensus should have been sought. What has been tabled by this fading Government is sweeping yet vague powers that go way beyond addressing the one issue of BDS and Israel. It’s a direct attack on free speech and democratic government. This tired and worn-out Conservative Government needs to stand down before it does more damage.

#unethical

[1] https://www.history.com/news/why-are-they-called-the-dog-days-of-summer

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66086671

[3] https://www.local.gov.uk/parliament/briefings-and-responses/economic-activity-public-bodies-overseas-matters-second-reading