Hayden

Howdy, howdy ho, and welcome to Fantasy Fan Fellas. I'm Hayden, producer of the Fantasy Fangirls podcast and your resident lover of all things Sanderson.

Stephen

And I'm Stephen, your bookish Internet goofball, but you can call me the Smash Daddy.

Hayden

And we are currently deep diving Brandon Sanderson's fantasy epic Mistborn. But here's the catch. Steven here has not read Mistborn before.

Stephen

That's right.

Hayden

Hey.

Aura Advertiser

Hey.

Stephen

So each week you'll get my unfiltered raw reactions to every single chapter.

Hayden

And along the way we'll do character deep dives, magic explainers, and Steven will even try to guess what's next.

Stephen

So, spoiler alert, he'll be wrong. News flash, I'm never wrong. Episodes come out every Wednesday and you can find Fantasy fanfellas wherever you get your podcasts. Santana won this tour 2026 from Woodstock to Supernatural and beyond with very special guest, the Doobie Brothers. Get tickets now@livenation.com ever walk past a place for rent and wish you could just take a peek inside, maybe even explore the layout? Envision the natural light streaming through the windows or plan where your vinyl record collection would go. At apartments.com you can. With tools like their 3D virtual tours, you can see the exact unit you could be living in. Really envision yourself in your new home with Apartments.com, the place to find a place.

Hayden

The London Borough of camden in the 1980s was seen by some as a classic example of the loony left. Now, please don't be offended by that word loony. It was commonly used in British politics in the 80s to describe parties who were seen as especially left wing. It was used to ridicule them, of course, to make them seem childish and silly, to make them seem mad. But as far as I can see, Camden seemed to relish the accusation of being part of the loony left, because it set them apart, far apart from the Thatcher government. And I suppose as a Labour led council, that was quite all right by them. Now, a quick word before we go on about local politics in London. In this era, in the 80s, local government in London was split into two levels. There was the Greater London Council who managed the big city, city wide things like transport, and then the smaller borough councils who did the localised things like collecting the bins, filling in the potholes, running the libraries. The Greater London Council, the glc, was left wing, run by Labour, of course, and liked to often challenge and antagonize the Thatcher government. Famously, the GLC once draped a huge banner across the roof of county hall, displaying the number of London's unemployed. County hall is right across the river from the Houses of Parliament, so it was a direct jab at the Conservative government. Another way in which the GLC sparred with central government was via rates. The glc, as with all local government bodies, was funded in two ways by local rates, in other words, tax, and by grants from central government. But these grants were cut in the hope of reducing public spending. But the glc, rather than tighten their budgets in response, decided to simply increase their rates. Central government fought back by introducing a law to cap the amount that these spendy local councils could claim from its residents. This law was aimed at the high spending councils, the ones who could be seen as being loony left and who, so the political cliche goes, were far too happy to spend other people's money spending it on left wing initiatives and trendy causes. Camden Borough Council, its critics argued, fell into this category as they gave funding to lots of community groups and left wing causes and were often mocked in the right wing press for doing so. A letter to the daily telegraph from September 83 from Camden's Conservative leader of Opposition ridiculed the ease with which they dished out grants to a range of organisations. Another letter, this time in the Evening Standard and entitled Lunacy on the Rates, says that Camden Council admits the rates are higher than that charged by other local boroughs, but don't say why. The letter claims that the reason is its funding of left wing groups and it lists those groups that the lesser writer objects to. The rates are so high because of the profligate waste of this council. This includes the use of ratepayers money for a wide variety of loony and blatantly party political groups and causes, such as cnd, Babies against the Bomb, Camden Women Against Cruz, the Camden Peace Groups Committee, Lesbian Line, Lesbians due wages, black women for wages for housework, the Kentish Town Lesbians, the English collective of prostitutes, the lesbian working party of the council's women's committee and the Women's bus and so on. So yes, Camden seem to relish funding these groups and causes. Perhaps it was a badge of honour for them. Thatcher and the Conservative government might be cutting, but in Camden we're striving to do the opposite, and often for causes which will stick in the craw of conservative types. I can imagine a typical trendy Labour voting Camden resident reading that letter and nodding and saying, yes, more money for babies against the bomb, especially if it annoys the other side. And speaking of the other side of the political divide. Did Tunbridge Wells Council, for example, provide funding for babies in favour of the nuclear deterrent? One day we'll have to do a podcast episode on the work of Babies against the Bomb. You know I'm not kidding. So this was a big debate in the early to mid-80s. Left wing local councils, are they an essential thorn in Thatcher's side, providing a voice against the hard hearted, cruel Tory government, throwing a lifeline to progressive causes who might otherwise be snuffed out? Or are they just loony lefties who love to spend other people's money? And when it came to civil defence, Camden was again at the forefront of rebellion against central government. They were one of the Hard rock rebels, as we discussed two weeks ago, and they had also declared themselves a nuclear free zone. And they issued a public information booklet of their own in response to Protect and Survive, called Can Camden Survive a Nuclear War? I have a copy here and we'll look at that in a future episode. But today we're going into my archive material to find out another way in which Camden was a glorious, irritating thorn in the side of the Thatcher government when it came to nuclear war planning. We know that after the Hard Rock rebellion, central government changed the law, making it compulsory for local councils to drop civil defence plans and compulsory to actively update those plans and to train for them. In other words, they closed the loophole which councils had used to rebel against and to bring down Hard rock. But do you think rebels like Camden were just going to shrug and go along with this? No way. When the new rules came out in 1983, they simply looked for new loopholes. They looked for different ways to upset and derail central government's insistence that they prepare for nuclear war. And this is one of the reasons why they were labelled as the so called loony left, because instead of finding new and exciting ways to go to war with the Conservative government, some locals were probably thinking, here we go again, yet another ideological battle. Just collect the bins, you lot, just fill in the potholes. But no, the rebellion against central government and its insistence that councils prepare for nuclear war went on. And it was the GLC who led the way by seeking legal advice on these new civil defence rules. They asked lawyers, basically, how can we get around this? Please find us a loophole so we don't need to fall into line and plan for nuclear war. And the legal advice to the GLC was do nothing in terms of civil defence planning until you know exactly what you're planning for. And that is why the GLC commissioned the so called Glawors report, Glawors standing for Greater London Area War Risk Study. The GLC followed that legal advice, do nothing until you know exactly what you're planning for. And so they went to the Home Office who were in charge of civil defence and they said, okay, tell us exactly what a nuclear attack on London would be like so that we can then plan accordingly. As you can imagine, the Home Office were very reluctant to dish out the cold hard facts on what a nuclear war would do to the capital city. They were especially reluctant to put such cold hard facts in the hands of their ideological enemy across the river. So the glc, in a stroke of genius, eventually shrugged and said, ah, well, if you won't tell us, we'll just have to gather a body of experts together and commission them to do an in depth study on what a nuclear war would be like and we will then publicize their results and tell everyone how horrible it will be. Thanks, bye. So the government couldn't win, really. Here's a quote from The Guardian from July 84, when this issue had truly exploded. The Home Office finds itself in a dilemma. To get cooperation and efficient planning, it must issue detailed instructions. But to issue accurate accounts of the likely impact of nuclear assault would only be to reveal the utter futility of civil defence planning. And the newspaper went on to discuss the catch 22 situation. If civil defence is essential in any nuclear war, then the government will need to get busy and start building shelters and implementing other measures to protect the civilian population. Without those measures, you can hardly demonstrate to the enemy that you're serious about civil defense and that therefore you're serious about fighting nuclear war. However, if you do start building fallout shelters everywhere, this would undermine the government's stance that the nuclear deterrent deters war, that the existence of nuclear weapons keeps us safe from nuclear war. Catch 22. So that was the response of the GLC, the top tier of local government in London. Go to the Home Office and say, okay, you want us to plan? Tell us exactly precisely what we are planning for. And Camden Local Council decided to do likewise. They refused to just meekly accept that they now had a plan for nuclear war. No, they would piggyback on the legal advice the GLC had. They too would approach the Home Office with difficult questions about the nature of nuclear war in order to defer, delay and deny the demands that they planned for nuclear war. So let's dig into my archives here. Camden Council wrote to the home office on 17 October 1984 with a list of questions about a possible attack on London, a nuclear attack, and what it would mean for the population on the ground. The Home Office replied in November and I have the questions and answers here. I found them in a file at London South Bank University and I will upload them to my Patreon page so you can read them at your leisure. I'll start with reading you their initial letter here. Dear Home Secretary, at its May meeting, this Council gave careful consideration to the implications of the civil defence regulations. In 1983, it concluded that it could not comply properly with the requirements until the Government provided adequate planning assumptions on the likely pattern of an attack on London. The new Government circular provides general guidance to the whole range of local authorities on the Government's planning assumptions for civil defence. However, there are a number of areas where it would be helpful to this Council to have more specific information, in particular relating to its position as an Inner London borough. The specific questions set out below cover those matters upon which the Council considers it needs guidance from the Government before it can carry out effectively its statutory obligations under the regulations. I would therefore be grateful if you could answer point by point the questions listed below. So they're a very polite and reasonable letter which makes it very clear that we can't do what is required of us until you answer these tricky, uncomfortable questions. And as I see, I've uploaded the full file, all questions and answers between Camden and the Home Office to my Patreon page. But let's have a look at the first two here. The first question was about warning time. They say that central government suggests we'll have a nice seven day warning period of nuclear attack and that that's plenty of time for the local councils across Britain to put all their civil defence plans into place. But Camden point out at the same time, government is urging councils to be able to swing into action if necessary within 48 hours. Added to this, Camden say there has been the recent deployment in Europe of Pershing missiles, which are said to be just 10 minutes flight time from their Soviet targets and that the Soviets have indicated they may adopt launch on warning in response. So Camden wants to know how can the Government talk of a seven day warning period when on the other hand there May only be 48 hours? Or given the recent deployment of Pershing and the Soviet reaction to Pershing, we might be looking at a warning time of just a few minutes. So let's look at the Home Office's reply. Oh, it's difficult to answer, they suggest, as there are so many different definitions of warning and there are so many different military scenarios in which war might break out. So they point out to Camden that they should aim to achieve different things if they get a seven day warning period as opposed to a frantic 48 hour period. If we get the luxury of seven days, then Camden should be able to accomplish all of their goals. But if we get just a 48 hour period, then this should be used for jumping to it and sorting out only the most vital, vital stuff. But they stress that this 48 hour warning period is unlikely, as is the dreaded bolt from the blue, where you get just minutes in most circumstances. It's probable that the threat of war would be preceded by a period of deteriorating international relations, which would clearly provide a longer period in which to implement plans. That has long been the case in British nuclear civil defence planning. I found that phrase in archives. Again and again there will be a period of tension. They even give this period a name back in the 50s, the precautionary period during which civil servants and politicians can start to tidy their desks, get the wives and kids off to the country and put their out of office on their emails or whatever the equivalent was back in the 50s. Planning always weaves in this nice long warning time for two main reasons. One, because sure, it might well turn out that way. That's how it plays out in threads. There is time in the film for blankets to be delivered to schools, for the hospitals to be emptied, for fire engines to get out of town, for families to unscrew their doors and build the refuges, and for politicians to make their calls and go to their bunkers. But the other reason is even more obvious, and that's because unless you tell yourself there will be a long warning period, then there is no point to civil defence planning. So the government response to Camden stresses that a bolt from the blue attack is highly unlikely and we can surely rely on at least 50, 48 hours notice quote, and very likely considerably longer. So therefore Camden are told they should sort out their planning so that the most vital parts can be hurriedly done in 48 hours, just in case. As an example of the vital work which should be done if we only have 48 hours, they mention structural strengthening and sandbagging any designated shelters. It should also be possible to stock any such shelters with adequate water and basic rations within that 40 hour period. So if we do only get 40 hours, devote yourself to the basics, fortifying certain buildings and stocking them with water and rations. That civil defense planning stripped to its most basic. Try and make sure the building doesn't fall down and that there's food and water inside. And at the end of the reply to this question of warning time, the Home Office just can't resist batting away the issue of the Pershing missiles. When crews and Pershing were deployed to Europe in the early 80s, it sparked a wave of protest. The argument was that it made Western Europe a nuclear target because the Soviets could attack these newly deployed missiles and take them all out without touching American soil. Without America, as they say in Dr. Strangelove, getting its hair must. Maybe that's what the Soviets want, a nuclear war where America stays out of it. Maybe that's what America wants, to let Europe be the battlefield so the deployment of Persian Cruz make nuclear war more likely more plausible in Western Europe, argued protesters. And Camden said, if we're pointing these newly deployed missiles at the Soviets and they know that they can hit their target in 10 minutes, they too will be poised and ready to respond. In a matter of minutes they might even launch on warning. Meaning they won't even wait for a confirmed nuclear strike. They'll launch an attack merely on the warning that one is incoming. So we will only have minutes of warning. Not 48 hours, certainly not seven days. Well, in the reply, the Home Office batted that aside, saying with what I must admit is admirable honesty, this has been the case for many years and is quite unaffected by the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe. In other words, stop moaning. We could all fry with just four minutes notice. What else is new?

Stephen

What makes a leader worth following? What should you really care about in your job? As technology is changing so quickly, is it just gonna be about machines talking to other machines? I mean, should you quit your job and start something on your own, what would that take? What does success and risk look like when we're all at the starting gate together? These are the questions we answer each week on Lead Human with Jack Myers and Tim Spengler. Join us each week and subscribe at your favorite podcast platform and YouTube. We'll tell stories, we'll hear from some of the best, and we'll try to figure this out together. Santana 1 this tour 2026 from Woodstock to Supernatural and beyond with very special guest the Doobie Brothers get tickets now@live nation.com.

Hayden

They're saying that Pershing might arguably make a nuclear attack more likely, but it wouldn't make it more speedy. So I have to give the government a reluctant tick beside this answer. It's a good answer. They acknowledge that there can be no certainty anything could happen we could get into a war with the Soviets which drags and stumbles and abates and then surges back, and only after weeks or months would it perhaps erupt into nuclear war. Think of the so called phony war in Britain. Neville Chamberlain announced we were at war with Germany on a nice Sunday afternoon in September 1939. And then nothing happened. Not to us in Britain at least. The Battle of Britain wasn't till the summer of 1940 and the Blitz didn't begin until September of that year. And this lull where nothing much happened was known as the phoney war. One of the results of the phony war was that loads of little kids who'd been evacuated from the cities were brought back home because their mothers had developed a false sense of security. So, yes, within living memory, the British had experience of a huge war where nothing really happened for a long time. There was a long build up to the actual declaration of war and then a lull after that declaration with not much going on. So war might explode in an instant or it could drag on for months in stagnation. There can never be any certainty and it is childish to expect it. Let's turn to the next question. Camden asked about public shelters. As we know, Britain didn't provide shelters for its population in the Cold War. If you wanted one, you had to build one and pay for it yourself, although the Home Office did at least issue guidance on how to do that. But communal shelters open to the public, as we had in the Blitz? Nope, there was nothing. And that fact was used to attack the government. Opponents could say, you're leaving us without protection, leaving us to die if nuclear war comes. But at the same time, those opponents were often arguing that civil defence is useless. There can be no protection, so central government. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But there was a change after 1983. These new civil defence regulations, brought in after the Hard Rock Rebellion, had something new to say about the provision of communal shelters. Whilst there was still no requirement to actually build them for the public, there was now a duty on local councils, such as Camden, to survey buildings on their patch to see which, if any, would be able to serve as a fallout shelter if the time came. I have a booklet here again from the archive at London south bank and which I've uploaded for you to Patreon, which sets out the guidelines for choosing which buildings might double as a public fallout shelter. It's called Emergency Planning Guidance to Local Authorities. And I have here the section on communal shelters. Now, the booklet is from 85. And so you'll notice the term emergency planning start to pop up in place of civil defense. Again, that stems from the Hard Rock Rebellion and the Nuclear Free Movement. Councils were objecting to planning for nuclear war. And so the government tried to get around that by lumping all horrors, all disasters, into one, saying, okay, you don't want to plan for nuclear war, but you must plan for floods and storms and terrorist attacks. And these emergency plans can also be stretched to cover, whisper it, nuclear war. So the booklet tells local councils that the first thing they must consider in choosing a suitable building is its protection factor, its pf. In other words, how much protection will it offer against fallout? And it tells us we might increase a building's PF by fortifying it with sandbags and other dense material. That's true, but imagine if, in a period of high tension, a local council starts piling sandbags high at the exterior of a building and nailing up boards. Won't those sandbags and boards just be stolen by people who are desperate to build their own refuges at home? In line with protect and survive, how do you fortify the exterior of a building, but then make sure no one pinches your fortification because the shops have run out of sandbags and wood and nails? We see that happen in threads, too. When bob snaps, it's a bloody joinery, not a timber yard. People are desperately trying to get supplies, and so naturally those supplies, whether it's of sandbags or tins of food, will run out. The booklet also tells the council how to calculate your chosen building's pf. You can go floor to floor assessing the conditions, or you can do the cool modern 1980s thing and use a computer. The booklet says that the home Office have developed a computer method for calculating a building's pf, and that method is called protfac, Protfac being Protection Factor. We're told that local authority scientific advisors have been trained in using protfac and that the computer program has been listed in Zilog Fortran in a form suitable for use on microcomputers. Now, my husband is a computer geek, and I thought, well, he'll love all this chat. So I knocked on his office door, feeling all smug with that look of hey, I know something you don't know. And I led him to the archives, spread it on my desk and said, look at this. Bet you've never heard of Zylog Fortran. And he puffed up his chest in indignation. Zylog Fortran. Have I heard of Zilog Fortran. And then he talked to me for about 25 minutes without pausing for breath about Zilog Fortran. I wish I'd never bothered so local councils are also advised to assess a building's susceptibility to blast. And for this they should divide their chosen buildings into two categories, robust tied structures or untied gravity structures. The first is the best for resisting blast, robust tide structure being a building where steel or concrete acts as a kind of skeleton in the building, kind of tying it all together. So if one part is destroyed at a blast, the rest of it should remain standing. It then talks about the difference between buildings which are above or below ground. And it says, naturally a building below ground will offer better blast protection. But consider what is above ground. Again, thinking of threads the town hall collapsing. You might get great blast protection sheltering in the underground floors of a car park for example. But how will you ever get out if the upper floors of the multi storey have landed on you? But let's leave all those technical details aside and get back to people, which is the interesting stuff. The next section of the booklet is on habitability requirements. What do these buildings need in order to be reasonably endurable, reasonably comfortable for those who'll be taking shelter? Remember, they might be stuck in there for 14 days. So how can the place be made half decent for two weeks of living inside it? And here's an interesting thing. The booklet says that with adequate warning, people will be expected to bring their own supplies. So you might turn up at the shelter with a rucksack full of cans of Coke, Crunchies, Pringles and sausage rolls. Not bad. However, if a bunch of people arrive at the shelter without supplies, and perhaps that's through no fault of their own, perhaps their home and their own little rucksacks full of crunchies have been destroyed in a period of conventional bombing, for example, well then you'll have a difficult situation where some people in the shelter are well equipped and eating nicely and others have nothing. One family might have a Waitrose hamper and have brought posh duck down duvets. Others will have nothing. No food, no bedding, no hint of comfort. Now how is that going to work in terms of all these people being forced into a shared living space and having to get along with one another under awful and horribly tense conditions, it's easy to imagine there will be jealousy, resentment and ill feeling. Especially if you won't share your sausage rolls and Pringles. But then you could turn that on its head and say there will be resentment and ill feeling if you compel everyone to share. So the booklet says. Plans for use of the shelters must therefore allow for varying contributions to supplies by the various groups of occupants. A varying contribution to supplies indeed, because some might turn up laden with luxury and others will have nothing. So how will that work in practice? Is everyone in that shelter going to share nicely? And what will be the consequences for group cohesion if they don't?

Aura Advertiser

Most people don't realize how much of their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where Aura comes in. Aura actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But Aura goes beyond data protection. With one app you get a vpn, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance. All backed by 24. 7 US based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or even just a vpn. Aura gives you all of it together at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at aura.com safety. Protect yourself now at aura.com safety while every other channel is fighting for your

Hayden

customers attention, podcasts are where they've already given it. No one accidentally listens to a podcast for 45 minutes. They choose to be here. They trust the voice in their ears. And when that voice talks about your brand, it doesn't sound like advertising. It sounds like a recommendation from a friend. ACAST gives you that trust at scale, digital precision. Host read authenticity and performance data that proves it worked. Don't fight for attention. Buy it with Acast. Learn more by visiting acast.com. And be honest. Would you be happy after the bomb has dropped, knowing that you'll never see nice things ever again? To see your posh chocolate bar, your double chalk pecan praline salted caramel blondie truffle bar being devoured by a bunch of strangers who, whether it was through their own fault or not, contributed nothing. I wouldn't want to surrender my last chocolate bar, my last sausage roll, my last Marks and Spencer gold tea bag knowing I'll never see them again. So this section of the booklet was quite interesting we are not dealing with children in the classroom who are being taught to be nice and to share. These will be frightened, angry, desperate, hungry people. You can't just wag your finger at them and ask them to share. And that is one of the problems of communal shelters. Inequality. Inequality is natural, it's unavoidable. And whilst it would be nice if everyone pooled the resources, is that realistic? There then follows a checklist which any local council needs to follow in choosing a building for shelter. They need to look at ventilation, temperature, water supply. They need to look at the ease of access and exit from the building. This is important, of course, if you want to avoid crashes and panics. So you must consider if in entering the building, there are stairways, gates, sloping passageways, etc. And in terms of exiting the building, if that moment ever comes, you must be sure to have tools in the shelter in case, as we see in threads, you need to try and dig your way out because Sheffield Town hall has collapsed on top of you. And if we turn again to food, as above, we said that people would be encouraged to hopefully bring their own supplies. People would be urged by government broadcasts to take their own food to a communal shelter, particularly those people requiring special foods, such as diabetics or nursing mothers. But their ability to do so would vary according to the circumstances under which they occupied communal shelters. Plans should therefore provide for the acquisition, in a war emergency, of some food and other supplies. Some survival foods, such as biscuits, sugar tablets and boiled sweets could be stored in the shelters in a war emergency, but this would serve only as a supplement to people with little or no food with them when they entered the shelter. So, again, talk about resentment and ill feeling. You'll have someone sitting next to you, tucking into their luxury Waitrose hamper, and you're sitting on the bunk beside them with your dry biscuit and your sugar cube. The guidance also says you need to think about cooking in the shelter. Whilst you're all sealed in there, you obviously can't be firing up a camping stove, but once radiation levels have fallen, probably after a few days, it would be practical to use gas to cook near the door. Now, that just seems strange to me because it evokes a jolly image of a family barbecue. I imagine the shelter warden over at the open door, nice breeze coming in, flipping burgers and asking over his shoulder, who wanted sausages. Just the whole idea of the door being open in the shelter seems odd. But then, of course, for short periods, as they said, when radiation levels have fallen, why not? You would Be advised to open the door to put out bags of waste, for example. So why not take the opportunity, if it's safe, to let some air in and to prepare some hot food. But then if you have the door open, you might have the problem of people, unwanted people, excessive numbers of people trying to gain entry to the shelter. Especially if you're flipping burgers in the open doorway with a big apron on, saying, kiss the cook. Won't you be attracting hungry humans by cooking in the doorway as well as dogs, rats and God knows what else? So we turn then to bedding. And the booklet says, trials in the United States have shown that mats of corrugated sandwich cardboard are comfortable enough to allow unhindered sleep. It adds, the occupants of the communal shelters should be discouraged from bringing mattresses in with them. I suppose that's because, well, for one reason, it would make quick access to the shelter difficult. Imagine trying to rush in on hearing the siren, but the entrance is jammed with blocks with mattresses going, hold it upright, Charlie, this way. Turn it left. No, no, your left, your left. There's also the hygiene aspect of mattresses. We might expect some level of sickness and diarrhea in a nuclear shelter. Also a lack of proper toilet facilities. So it's not unexpected that a few accidents might happen. And a mattress won't be easy to clean and will retain smells and stains. They will also be bulky, of course, and take up too much floor space. However, occupants will be encouraged to bring their own blankets and sleeping bags, or, as was suggested earlier, corrugated sandwich cardboard. But again, such a situation will just create more resentment through inequality. Some people will have their luxury duck down duvets from John Lewis, their cashmere blankets, and some people will be sleeping on scraps of corrugated cardboard. Resentment and ill feeling is going to simmer and it's easy to imagine arguments, theft and violence erupting. But then what is the alternative? To stop people at the door and say, put down your blankets, put down your bag of Crunchies? That is just, I assume, one of the inherent problems in a communal shelter. If you allow a random group of the public into any shelter, you will have inequality, you will have clashing personalities. There's no way around that. So I'm looking at the timer. We're already. This is quite a long episode, so I'm going to stop there. And we will look in the next episode at the rest of Camden's questions to the Home Office. Some of them are quite juicy. And I've put Camden's questions and the Home Office's answers And this emergency planning booklet on preparing communal shelters up on my Patreon page. So if you're a member, take a look and you can read them all in detail in your own time. And if you're not a member, consider joining us. You get archived material like that and you get bonus episodes and you get ad free access if you're a patron. So please do take a look@patreon.com Atomichobo and we'll continue our look at troublesome Camden in the next episode. Thank you for listening.

Stephen

Santana Oneness Tour 2026 From Woodstock to Supernatural and beyond with very special guest the Doobie Brothers get tickets now@livenation.com Most people don't realize how much of their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where Aura comes in. Aura actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But Aura goes beyond data protection. With one app you get a vpn, antivirus, password manager, spam, call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance. All backed by 24, 7 US based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a vpn. Aura gives you all of it together at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at aura.com safety protect yourself now at aura.com safety

Hayden

acast powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend. Hi, I'm Jesse Klein. And I'm Liz Feldman. And we are back for another season of Here to Make Friends, which is our podcast that is really just a long con to invite amazing guests onto our show and trick them into being our friends. Great guests like Linda Cardellini, Jeff Hiller, Paulina Porizkova, other people. And we'll also give you a sneak peek into what our text thread looks like. Well, the kind of stuff we write about, like, should I buy this? Am I a unicorn? Do you think I'm a unicorn? Follow here to make friends wherever you get your podcasts and watch us on YouTube. Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.