Because 1. Buying Hinkley Point is a colossal mistake 2. Mrs May inherited the project from Osborne & Cameron, keen to develop Chinese trade, 3. but now finds it politically embarrassing to back out of this very bad deal Consequently, we need to inform the public 1. why the deal is bad 2. that there are better alternatives and 3. the Chinese and French can be placated while serving British interests Why is Hinkley Point such a bad deal? 1. It is far too expensive 2. There are undeclared costs associated with the nuclear legacy which make nonsense of published costs – we will have to look after the abandoned reactors and radioactive waste for centuries and nobody knows how to do it or cares how much it will cost 3. There is a huge risk of failure – no such reactor has yet been completed and the ones started (Finland 2005, France 2007) are unfinished, in deep technical trouble and seriously (by billions each) over budget 4. The risks are ultimately borne by us, not the French contractors or Chinese financiers – the project is too big to be allowed to fail by the Government of the day (not Mrs May) 5. Nuclear technology is in any case the wrong choice for filling our anticipated supply gap: nuclear energy gets more expensive as new ideas to improve safety are incorporated in the design; in contrast other well established methods of electricity generation such as gas or coal-fired turbines and particularly offshore wind and solar energy get cheaper by the day owing to accumulating experience and rapid technical development 6.IF it has to be nuclear, the Hinkley Point reactors are too big (small modular reactors can be built instead as needed, at a fraction of the cost and in much less time) and probably also the wrong technology (a debatable, but only secondary, point) Why is the Government pursuing it? The above problems with the Hinkley project are well known to Mrs May and her advisers, but 1. Mrs May inherited it from Messrs Cameron & Osborne, who promoted it mainly in order to develop tempting business relations with China. 2. Brexit makes such relations even more important as proof of GBplc's viability outside the EU Are there any alternatives? Technical alternatives are set out above, but how to meet the political and commercial imperatives? We must persuade the public, and thus influence the Government, to 1. Abandon Hinkley even at this late stage and with possible compensation costs and offer the Chinese and French Governments partnerships in implementing the chosen technical alternative (the Chinese are leaders in solar cell development and production and both the French and Chinese may be interested in offshore developments, small reactors and advanced research). 2. Maximise the benefits to UKplc by ensuring that a good share of work is retained (for example involving UK contractors and Rolls-Royce if small modular nuclear plants form part of the chosen technical mix). Balint Bodroghy BASC DIC (nuclear engineering) 5 Palmeira Avenue Mansions 17-19 Church Road, Hove, BN3 2FA REFERENCES Why Hinkley Point is a nuclear folly of Titanic proportions New Scientist 28.07.16 Michael Le Page Forget the economics of Hinkley Point, the politics are convincing Daily Telegraph Matthew Lynn 15 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 6:21PM If there’s one sure-fire way to irritate de Rivaz of EDF, it’s to mention Christmas turkeys. Emily Gosden, energy editor, Daily Telegraph 17 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 8:00PM Let's ditch Hinkley Point and HS2 to get more bang for our bucks, Daily Telegraph Liam Halligan 17 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 12:59PM Hinkley Point fires up Britain's nuclear ambitions Daily Telegraph 17 September 2016, 8:00pm Rolls submitted designs to the Government for Small Modular Reactors capable of generating 220MW, that could be doubled up to 440, a 10th of the size of a traditional nuclear power station. Rolls Royce Publicity: For some 50 years, Rolls-Royce has been helping Naval and utility customers maximise plant operation and safely extend plant lifetimes. Britain is “ideally placed” to take a global lead in the SMR market, which could be worth £400bn,

In 2014, the Imperial War Museum privatised its visitor & security services. the company they appointed (Shields Guarding) had no experience in running museums and the results have been catastrophic impacting on workers, the services delivered to visitors and the care of collections. Workers have endured two years of mismanagement, as well as payroll and pension administration problems. The original contractor, Shield Guarding, has now gone bust and has been taken over by multinational Noonans. They also have no experience in managing museums and are focusing on cutting jobs for profit rather than improving services. Workers & the PCS Union have raised numerous Health & Safety concerns that go ignored. It is now an urgent for the Imperial War Museum to end privatisation. PCS members have raised alarming concerns about security and safety arrangements at the museum as a result of cost-cutting and the potential for a major incident to take place. The PCS culture group supports the call for a review of privatisations in the sector and for these contracts, like at the National Gallery, the British Museum or Tate, to be brought back in-house.

Many European countries, with more space than the UK, build parking under squares, hospitals and public buildings, while we do not - preferring to take up valuable space with multi-storey monstrosities. Huge centralised hospitals, with large catchment areas, are becoming the norm, necessitating the use of private transport for a great many, yet there is never enough parking for day patients, staff and visitors.

We have one of the best bus systems in Europe. Why do we need to spend more money on a tram system that is not required. This is a vanity project and they should hold a referendum on whether or not the people want it.

This puts a strain on the already stretched A&E services not only in Kent but in the entire country. Our large elderly community have been the mainstay of this country over the decades, gave their time and their lives to serve this country and now, when they need help the most, it is embarrassingly unavailable. Not everyone can get to the William Harvey in Ashford which is now our closest A&E department and the waiting times have increased exponentially, especially now with the closure of the Canterbury A&E. As time goes on the infrastructure is constantly changing to meet the needs of an ever increasing demand on traffic which in itself adds to the increased need for A&E to be a permanent feature in the town as it is one of the busiest ports in the world.

Department for Transport figures show that a driver impaired or distracted by their phone was a contributory factor in 492 accidents in Britain in 2014, including 21 that were fatal and 84 classed as serious. (BBC, 2016) AA statistics also suggest that up to a third of UK drivers use their phone while driving. But despite the widespread nature of the problem, and the danger it places other road users in, drivers can be caught twice before even going to court and through legal loopholes can still maintain their license at this stage. Lee Martin was killed by a driver using their phone at the wheel whilst out cycling. The man who killed him had at least 6 previous convictions for using a phone at the wheel but had managed to keep his driving license. Had the authorities been tougher and taken away his license then Lee Martin would not have died. Using a phone whilst driving sends out a clear message that you believe that your call is more important than somebody else's life. If people with that level of arrogance are on our roads, they need to be prevented from getting behind the wheel.

The scheme currently being implemented was designed to give safe passage to pedestrians and school children through the village. However, from the start of the campaign it was clear that the main priority was improved vehicular access to one property on the lane. The village as a whole voted for a cheaper and safe footpath to be installed. Despite this clear majority the council have instead decided to spend an estimated 1/3 of a £ million on improving the lane surface. This not only makes it much more dangerous for pedestrians but also is a complete waste of public money in a time of austerity. There has not been one single incident of school children or pedestrians being hurt by vehicles on school lane. There are numerous schools in Cardiff where there have been many documented incidents. Instead of spending money on improving safety at these schools Cardiff Council have decided to spend ludicrous amounts of money on improving the surface of the lane in the name of "safe routes to school". It doesn't make sense. It reeks of corruption and collusion. Throughout all of this the Council has purposefully left the residents of school lane in the dark. When they have responded they have lied. This has to stop! On top of this the scheme is destroying a historic part of the village with an ugly urban road. They are proposing to remove protected trees from the woodland and widening the lane. This is in a conservation area! Help to keep school children safe! Help to stand up against corruption! Help to save public money!

it would obviously help generate the power we need,also it would stop good arable land going to waste,not to mention the eyesore in the country syndrome.

The adventure playground in Kilburn Grange Park along with the playHut was part of a project (1 million) it has won an award.no one person/project took responsibility and it was left to rot. It is a really popular activity loved by all the community and visitors alike

Innocent civilians are being killed and injured, with little information about the war available.

Eight hours undisturbed sleep is a key to better health; the Heathrow owners have said if they win the third runway debate they will stop but this won't be for 20 years

It is an absolute travesty that developers 38 Curzon Ltd have called on the Curzon to fork out £500,000 to soundproof luxury properties they are building above it. They know that the cinema doesn’t have the funds. They know that the venue is listed and would face an uphill struggle to get permission to change its interiors. This is a de facto attempt to close the Curzon through the backdoor. Curzon Mayfair must be protected. We simply cannot afford to lose this much-loved, iconic venue. To read the Evening Standard's coverage see this link: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/historic-mayfair-cinema-faces-closure-in-row-over-noise-from-films-in-flats-above-it-a3345416.html