POINTLESS UK EV grant of £3,750

This UK Labour government is as pointless and as misguided as the EV grant that they've introduced of £3,750 for brand-new electric vehicles.

It has to be a new vehicle. I'll tell you why it's a pointless grant and quite hopelessly misconceived. Take a EV that apparently holds value quite well: the Ford Puma GEN-E. Brand-new it costs £29,995 (as at today).

After the first year it'll be worth about £7000 less than that at about £23,000. So the purchaser loses about £7000 after 12 months, a point in the car's life at which the car is almost new. It's as good as new.

So if the buyer buys a nearly new i.e. one year old Ford Puma GEN-E car they will pay £23,000 for it and thereby save themselves £7000. But if they buy new one they will save themselves £3750 under the UK government grant.

It's pretty obvious that the wise choice is to buy a one year old version of this car because you save about twice as much money then you would if you bought a new one.

Other cars will depreciate faster. Many electric vehicles depreciate very rapidly actually, more so than the car mentioned in this article. And therefore the losses will be greater. As soon as the car is driven out of the showroom the buyer loses around £10,000 on many high-end EVs. They're paying £10,000 for the pleasure of smelling a new car!

This government's EV grant scheme is hopeless. It is hopelessly misconceived and is just a PR exercise. Anybody with a bit of common sense will not go down the route of seeking that grant.

In practice, the smart money is almost always a nearly new cars. You might like the dealer perks and the brand-new experience and you might like the maximum warranty but nowadays many cars have very long warranties up to 7 years and therefore taking one year off is neither here nor there.

To be fair, the grant is not absolutely useless. It does reduce the entry price for new buyers and some people really like to be new-car buyers. But in real cash terms, it's benefit is offset by the rapid drop in value of all new cars.

--------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

When Biological Clocks Collide: Humans, Cats, and the Quiet Strain of Shared Time

Humans and domestic cats live together in extraordinary intimacy, yet their relationship contains an often-overlooked structural tension. It is not about affection, training, or personality. It is about time itself.

Humans are a strongly diurnal species. Our biology expects daylight activity and consolidated sleep at night. Hormones, body temperature, alertness, and mood all follow this pattern. While modern life can bend these rhythms, it rarely does so without cost. Sleep fragmentation, in particular, erodes patience, emotional regulation, and cognitive resilience.

Cats operate on a different clock. Domestic cats are not truly nocturnal, nor are they continuously active. They are best described as crepuscular, with instinctive peaks of alertness and activity at dawn and dusk. These hours coincide with the natural activity patterns of their ancestral prey. Between these bursts, cats sleep lightly and frequently, often in short cycles that allow rapid reactivation.

This mismatch matters. Dawn and dusk are precisely the times when humans are biologically least inclined toward activity. Early morning is a low point for alertness and reaction time. Evening brings declining vision and physiological preparation for rest. What a cat experiences as opportunity, a human experiences as intrusion.

In a caregiving relationship, this divergence is magnified. The human controls food, warmth, safety, and stimulation. The cat therefore directs its biologically urgent behaviours toward the human, often at times when the human is least responsive. Vocalisation, pacing, scratching, and attention-seeking behaviours are not acts of defiance but attempts to close a feedback loop that evolution expects to function.

Over time, this can subtly undermine the relationship. Chronic sleep disturbance is not trivial. When irritation must be continually suppressed because the source is a loved animal, it often turns inward. The cat may be labelled “demanding” or “needy,” while the human frames themselves as a light sleeper or poor sleeper. What goes unnamed is the deeper issue: a chronic circadian misalignment embedded within an attachment bond.

This tension can be more pronounced in cats that experienced a feral or semi-feral early life. For these cats, dawn and dusk were not preferences but survival windows. Their nervous systems were shaped in environments where those hours carried heightened significance. When such cats later become socialised and domestic, the environment changes faster than the internal clock. Human routines, regular feeding, and artificial lighting can soften behaviour, but the crepuscular bias often remains sharper.

By contrast, cats raised entirely indoors from kittenhood tend to show more blurred rhythms. Their activity peaks are flatter, spread across the day by predictability and boredom rather than etched sharply into twilight.

None of this implies incompatibility or failure. Most human-cat relationships find workable compromises through routine, enrichment, feeding schedules, and acceptance. But recognising the biological roots of the tension matters. It reframes the problem not as stubbornness, bad behaviour, or personal inadequacy, but as two evolved chronologies sharing a living space.

The affection remains real. So does the friction. Understanding both allows the relationship to be managed with greater patience, realism, and compassion, for human and cat alike.

Skirts are a barrier to a student's movement and learning

It sounds very provocative but skirts worn by school girls can be a barrier to academic excellence. I might have said that the wrong way but the fact is that skirts are impractical and it has been found that freedom to engage in physical activities enhances the learning process. Clearly the classic schoolgirl uniform is a barrier to physical activities without wishing to put too fine a point on it.

And I'm told in The Times that primary schools that have ditched traditional uniforms both in respect of boys and girls but mainly girls as mentioned above, are reporting improvements in academic attainment, well-being and attendance.

This has prompted calls for a rethink about school uniforms. It is stated that a much better uniform would be one which is entirely practical and is in effect a sports uniform designed for activity; in short 'activewear'.

This is been found by Dame Dorothy primary school in Sunderland where the children wear an "always active" uniform. It was introduced two years ago with support from the Youth Sport Trust.

The uniform consists of practical weather-appropriate sportswear which is worn throughout the day.

The changing uniform reflected the school's long-standing commitment of physical activity and pupil health.

The head teacher, Iain Williamson said: "We have the children running outside every day during curriculum time, we have lots of activities on offer in the yard. So the question was, are they dressed and equipped to run safely and to be comfortable outside in the colder weather, and to take part and make use of all the apparatus? We encourage pupils to be active throughout the day, and the uniform was the final piece of the jigsaw."

Evidence demonstrates that traditional uniforms can restrict children's movement particular for girls.

A Cambridge University study published in 2025 analysed data from more than 1 million pupils across 135 countries. It found that in places where formal school uniforms are widely required fewer children met the World Health Organisation's recommended 60 minutes of daily physical activity.

Traditional uniforms curb activity levels. It said that the female students feel less confident doing things such as riding a bike or doing cartwheels when wearing a skirt or dress.

When girls join activities at playtime attendance levels improve. It is said that prioritising well-being through movement could improve behaviour attendance and academic achievement.

Personally, I have always thought that schoolgirls should not be wearing short skirts. It is basically sexualising them. And they do this willingly. It seems that they want to be sexualised which must detract from academic excellence. It must detract from studying and focusing on studying. Uniforms must be entirely practical so that the student's minds can be entirely focused on the work at hand.

There has been some discussion on the Internet as to whether banning school skirts are a matter of human rights! Although I have not read the article by Dr. Helen Wright because I don't want to waste my time, she is questioning whether this is a breach of human rights. I find that absolutely ridiculous.

This is a question of practicalities, pragmatism and ensuring that students work at an optimal level, achieve what they can achieve and not be distracted by self-imposed sexualisation.

When I go and buy the paper in the morning at my local garage, I noticed a lot of girl students wear incredibly short skirts, barely covering their bottom; and even during the coldest winter day! It seems as though these girls are so addicted to the sexual turn on of wearing short skirts that they can't stop it.

That means that their focus is not on academic work. It is not truly on improving their chances of getting good grades in exams and thereafter progressing successfully throughout their life if they have aspirations of a career.

I am all for a complete ban on skirts. That's not because I am some archaic asexual nutcase. I want what's best these females. It could be argued that short skirts are as bad for academic excellence as an addiction to social media on smart phones!

----------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Financially, Heat Pumps Cannot be Justified in UK 2026

Although environmentally speaking it is very easy to justify the installation of a heat pump in your home, they cannot be justified on a purely financial basis because heat pumps cost more to operate than gas boilers mainly because they run on electricity and electricity is four times more expensive than gas at present in the UK. I guess things can change but I am writing about the metrics at this moment.

And this information comes from a survey carried out by the Green Britain Foundation in which 1000 heat pump owners were questioned.

You may know that heat pumps work like a reverse refrigerator by moving warmth from the outside air to the inside. They produce about 3 to 4 times the energy they use making them much more efficient than a traditional gas boiler.

I mention the running costs briefly above. There is also the installation costs. Even with the £7500 upfront subsidy, the installation of a heat pump will be £3000 more expensive than the installation of a gas boiler at about £3000. You have to recoup that extra £3000 over the forthcoming years after installation which you are not going to do.

Another point is that the claims the manufacturers make can be misleading because some data suggest that about 90% of heat pumps' actual performance is below the manufacturers' claims.

The survey mentioned above found that two thirds of respondents said their homes are more expensive to heat with heat pumps than they were with gas boilers, their previous system.

Only 15% of respondents reported that their homes are less expensive to heat. The remaining 19% reported no difference or that they were unsure.

It seems that heat pumps are far more common with richer people than poorer people. This probably indicates or confirms that the main reason for installing them is to protect the environment and the money aspect which I am mentioning here is somewhat irrelevant or less relevant for these people.

I think, however, that the financial aspects are very important because it's hard to ask the average person to pay £3000 more to install a heat pump rather than a gas boiler and then find out it's more expensive to run than a gas boiler.

And the installation is quite substantial. There is much more in terms of equipment when installing a heat pump compared to a boiler. There's more disruption and the equipment occupies more space. You will need to have that space around your house. There are strict rules about how close the pump can be to one's neighbour. It is far more technical than a gas boiler it seems to me.

Dale Vince, the person who set up the Green Britain Foundation says that customers are being mis-sold heat pumps. He added that: "It's a myth, but is such a frustrating one, that heat pump save you money. The reality for people on the ground is a disappointment."

The government argues otherwise. They say that a survey conducted by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said that 89% of property owners were satisfied with their heat pumps after a winter of use. The report said that property owners had mixed experiences with their total energy bills after installing a heat pump but "most commonly they reported that their bills had decreased."

As mentioned that comes from the government and personally I don't trust this government particularly as they want to promote heat pumps.

I have been thinking about installing a heat pump but having read The Times' article which I used to write this article, I have decided against installing a heat pump. This is particularly so because my current boiler is functioning okay and I don't plan to live in my house that much longer and you have to live in your house in which a new heat pump has been installed for many years in order to recover the initial outlay namely the extra £3000 mentioned above. That must be factored in to the overall finances.

------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Your Obese Cat Is Dying Slowly And You’re the One Feeding the Disease

Here is a tough-talking article about domestic feline obesity in the modern age. 70 years ago cat obesity was rare. 70 years ago we might say the same about human obesity. Both ate less, ate more pure foods and exercise more indirectly. Here goes...

Let’s stop pretending your cat “just got a little chunky.” Let’s stop hiding behind cute internet slang like “chonker” and “floof.” Your cat isn’t adorable. Your cat is obese. And the reason is brutally simple:

You made it that way.

• Not fate.
• Not genetics.
• Not “he’s just hungry.”
• You.

Cats Were Built for Violence, Not Your Sofa

A cat is a precision‑engineered predator — a creature designed to stalk, sprint, leap, and kill. Their metabolism expects:

• protein
• fat
• movement
• unpredictability

Now look at the life you’ve given them.

They live in a climate‑controlled box.
They eat industrial pellets that crunch like cereal.
They sleep 20 hours a day because there’s nothing else to do.
Their biggest thrill is when the Amazon driver knocks.

You’ve taken a biological weapon and turned it into a throw pillow.

Obesity Isn’t an Accident — It’s the Environment You Built

• A cat doesn’t choose its food.
• A cat doesn’t portion its meals.
• A cat doesn’t decide to free‑feed on kibble all day.
• A cat doesn’t design a home with zero stimulation.

You do all of that.

So when your cat becomes obese, the cause isn’t mysterious. It’s not tragic. It’s not “one of those things.” It’s the direct result of the conditions you created.

• You didn’t mean to.
• You didn’t want to.
• But you did.

The Dark Mirror: Owners Pass Their Habits to Their Pets

Here’s the part people hate the most.

Cats often become obese for the same reason their owners do:

• too much processed food
• too little movement
• boredom mistaken for hunger
• emotional eating disguised as “treats”
• a warped sense of what a healthy body looks like

If overeating is normal in your home, overfeeding the cat feels normal too.
If you snack when you’re bored, you’ll feed the cat when it meows.
If you avoid exercise, you won’t create an active environment for your pet.

Your cat becomes a reflection of your lifestyle — a living, breathing mirror of your habits.

The Pet Food Industry Is Happy to Help You Kill Your Cat Slowly

Pet food companies know exactly what they’re doing.

• They sell calorie‑dense kibble because it’s cheap to produce and addictive to cats.
• They market treats as “love.”
• They print portion sizes that are laughably generous.
• They rely on the fact that most owners can’t tell the difference between “healthy” and “on the brink of diabetes.”

A lean cat looks “too skinny” to many people now. That’s how far the baseline has shifted.

The Excuses Are Pathetic

• “He’s fluffy.”
• “She’s a big girl.”
• “He hardly eats anything.”
• “She cries if I don’t feed her.”

These aren’t explanations. They’re denial.

• Cats beg because begging works.
• Cats overeat because the food is there.
• Cats gain weight because the calories exceed the output.

It’s not complicated. It’s just uncomfortable.

The Slow Death You Don’t Want to Think About

Obesity isn’t cute. It’s not harmless. It’s not a personality trait.

It’s:

• joint pain
• chronic inflammation
• diabetes
• heart strain
• reduced mobility
• shortened lifespan

Your cat isn’t “living its best life.”
It’s slowly dying in a body that can’t support itself — a body shaped by your choices.

The Brutal Bottom Line

If your cat is obese, it’s because the environment you created made obesity inevitable. Not because you’re cruel. Not because you don’t care. But because you control every variable that determines your cat’s health.

• Your cat can’t fix this.
• Your cat can’t change its environment.
• Your cat can’t say no to the bowl you keep filling.

You are the architect of its world — and its weight.

---------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.