Cyber firm expands at University of Wolverhampton base
The firm said it had chosen to invest in the Wolverhampton site as it was "scaling up" from research and development (R&D) of its Firebreak programme to large-scale manufacturing. Firebreak is designed to ringfence networks away from the internet to make them inaccessible to hackers, the firm said.Stephen Kines, co-founder and chief operating officer of Goldilock said he was thrilled to be expanding."With sophisticated ransomware and AI-powered attacks on a continuous rise, paired with the increasing interconnectedness of systems, Goldilock's technology provides a critical, foundational layer of defence. "The West Midlands offers us an invaluable hub for innovation, providing access to a diverse pool of talented tech professionals and a supportive business environment from which we can continue to grow the business and get our critical product to where it's needed most, as quickly as possible."City of Wolverhampton Council leader, Stephen Simkins, said: "Goldilock's expansion is a testament to the city of Wolverhampton's growing appeal as a destination of choice for ambitious tech firms, with an extensive R&D network, deep pool of specialist talent and proximity to the region's end-to-end manufacturing supply chain."
Follow BBC Wolverhampton & Black Country on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
16 hours ago
- Reuters
Poland last on list for US troop cuts in Europe, Polish defence ministry says
WARSAW, July 31 (Reuters) - Poland, Ukraine's western neighbour, is expected to be the last country in Europe to face U.S. troop reductions, Poland's top defence official said, as Washington weighs scaling back its military presence across the continent. The prospect of a U.S. troop drawdown in Europe has been a recurring topic since the start of Donald Trump's presidency, when Washington began pressing allies to shoulder more of the defence burden. "All the conversations we have with the Americans indicate that Poland is the last country from which the Americans would want to withdraw (its troops)," Deputy Defence Minister Pawel Zalewski told Reuters in an interview on Thursday. Zalewski said there is a strategic rationale for the presence of American troops in Poland, on NATO's eastern flank, to serve as a deterrent against Russia after Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Zalewski said Poland is seeking to be the hub of the U.S. presence in Europe, potentially serving as a logistics, service or even production centre for the U.S. defence industry. "We are talking about the upgrade of F-16 aircraft or a service centre for all types of American combat vehicles, including Abrams tanks," he said. While Germany played such a role during the Cold War, he said it was logical for countries closer to the conflict in Ukraine to be the base for U.S. and allied military operations. Poland has ramped up defence spending and accelerated efforts to modernise its military, becoming NATO's top spender on defence in terms of the proportion of its national wealth. As the largest buyer of U.S. weapons in Europe, according to the Polish defence ministry, the country is positioning itself as a key player in the face of an assertive Russia. The arsenal includes Abrams tanks, HIMARS rocket systems, and air defence assets like the Patriot missile system, modern F-16 and F-35 fighter jets and Apache helicopters. As a leading voice calling for members of NATO to spend more on defence, Poland, which borders Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, has allocated 4.7% of gross domestic product to boosting its armed forces in 2025 with a pledge to increase to 5% in 2026.
Reuters
a day ago
- Reuters
Pakistan says it wins US tariff deal; Trump cites oil reserves pact
WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD, July 31 (Reuters) - The United States and Pakistan said they had clinched a deal that Islamabad described as leading to lower tariffs on its exports, while President Donald Trump trumpeted a pact to help develop the South Asian nation's oil reserves. Neither mentioned the tariff rate agreed. Pakistan, which Washington has designated a "major non-NATO ally" in its effort to counter rival China's influence in the region, faced a potential tariff of 29% declared in April that was later suspended for 90 days to allow trade talks. "We have just concluded a Deal with the Country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive Oil Reserves," Trump wrote on social media. "We are in the process of choosing the Oil Company that will lead this Partnership." He gave no further details. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar also confirmed the deal. "Deal concluded," he told Reuters, without elaborating. Although Trump did not mention a tariff deal, Pakistan's finance ministry said on Thursday it would lead to "reduction of reciprocal tariffs, especially on Pakistani exports to the United States", but stopped short of revealing the figure. "This deal marks the beginning of a new era of economic collaboration especially in energy, mines and minerals, IT, cryptocurrency and other sectors," it said. The deal was a win-win situation for both nations, Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb, who led the final round of talks in Washington, said in video remarks. "From our perspective, it was always going beyond the immediate trade imperative, and its whole purpose was, and is, that trade and investment have to go hand in hand," he added in the statement from his office. Last week, Dar said both nations were "very close" to a trade deal that could come within days, after he met Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday. They discussed expanding trade and ties in critical minerals and mining, the two sides said afterwards. Other Pakistani officials have also visited for talks in recent weeks. Under Trump, Washington has sought to renegotiate trade deals with many countries which he threatened with tariffs for trade relations he calls unfair, a characterization many economists dispute. U.S. total goods trade with Pakistan was an estimated $7.3 billion in 2024, the office of the U.S. trade representative says on its website, up from about $6.9 billion in 2023. In 2024, its goods trade deficit with Pakistan was $3 billion, up 5.2% from 2023. Trump also said Washington was still negotiating with India on trade after he declared a tariff of 25% on goods imported from Pakistan's arch foe would start from Friday. Pakistan recently said it "appreciated the pivotal role" of Trump and Rubio "in de-escalating tensions between Pakistan and India by facilitating a ceasefire." Trump has repeatedly taken credit for the India-Pakistan ceasefire he announced on social media on May 10 after Washington's talks with both sides. India disputes Trump's claims that the ceasefire resulted from his intervention and trade threats. India's position is that New Delhi and Islamabad must resolve problems directly with no outside involvement. The latest escalation in the decades-old India-Pakistan rivalry was triggered by a deadly April 22 militant attack in India-administered Kashmir that India blamed on Pakistan. Islamabad denied responsibility. India struck Pakistan on May 7 and they exchanged deadly hostilities until the ceasefire.
The National
2 days ago
- The National
Trump acts like a tinpot Caesar demanding tribute from his vassals
His recent sojourn to Turnberry, that gilded monument to his vulgarity, was not a diplomatic mission but a thuggish display of extortion, a brazen shakedown of Europe's ruling elites by a man whose grasp of statecraft is as profound as his understanding of basic syntax. Trump, that oafish imbecile, that blustering buffoon, conducts himself not as a statesman but as a swaggering mob boss, squeezing concessions from his subordinates with all the subtlety of a knee-capping enforcer. His meeting with Ursula von der Leyen was less a negotiation than a ritual humiliation, as the European Commission president prostrated herself before the whims of an American imperialist regime that views trade not as mutual exchange but as plunder. READ MORE: Scottish Labour councillor suspended for 'bullying' member of the public The resulting 'deal' is a grotesque farce – Europe, trembling before its mercantile overlord, agrees to higher tariffs, coerced purchases of US goods, and the funnelling of billions into the maw of the American war machine. This is not diplomacy; it is tribute exacted by a gangster. And what of Keir Starmer, that eager supplicant, scurrying to Turnberry to kiss the ring of his transatlantic patron? His obsequiousness was met with the usual Trumpian blend of ignorance and malice – vague platitudes on Ukraine, half-brained mutterings on Gaza, and the usual litany of lies about stolen aid and imaginary victories. Starmer, ever the loyal vassal, could do little but nod along, his own political fortunes tethered to the whims of a man who views international relations as a protection racket. But let us not mistake this for mere farce. The stakes are dire. The European bourgeoisie, though seething at their subjugation, dare not defy their American paymasters, for fear of provoking an all-out trade war – or worse, losing the military backing that sustains their own imperialist ventures in Ukraine. They are trapped in a spiral of their own making, forced to bankroll US arms shipments, to prop up Nato's blood-soaked adventures, all while their own workers face the coming storm of economic devastation. History teaches us that empires built on extortion do not endure. The Roman tax farmers, the Habsburg enforcers, the British East India Company – all eventually crumbled beneath the weight of their own rapacity. Trump's gangster diplomacy is no different. It will end the same way. Alan Hinnrichs Dundee ON Monday, we were informed on BBC Scotland that a celebration had taken place in respect of the 70th anniversary of the opening of the Dounreay nuclear power plant. In attendance was a chap calling himself King Charles and a non-Scottish manager of the site who made me feel squeamish as I listened to his sycophantic fawning over the said King's attendance. Can I just clarify the background to this development back in 1955? The idea of developing nuclear energy at that time was filled with the possibility of a major disaster happening. The year, 1955, was just a decade after the horrific Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies. Nuclear weapons and power production were issues of dread for the general population. So, if this development was going to happen, where should it go? Obviously, Westminster decided that it should be located as far away from London as possible. Look at your map and you will see that Dounreay is as far from London as you can get without ending up in the Pentland Firth. The residents of Thurso and Wick would be obliterated if anything untoward happened, but they were expendable. In fact, probably most of Scotland would end up the same way. I was a wee boy in a small rural Highland primary school back in the mid-50s. I well remember the gift we were all given at that school. It was a glossy magazine with the front cover showing the impressive Dounreay dome. It was designed at deflecting attention from the dangers and promoting the idea that we were at the cutting edge of technology. I believe all schoolkids up here would have been given a copy too, so that our minds would be shaped to accept this thing that terrified those down south. A few jobs were created for workers at Dounreay but that was insignificant compared to the perceived dangers. Along with the nonsensical Protect And Survive booklet that was distributed at that time regarding saving yourself in the event of a nuclear attack, this magazine that we children received was just government propaganda to influence, lie to and control the population. Officials must have been laughing to themselves as they prepared them. Today, they still use the same methods and our voters are still inclined to believe them. Without truth, what hope is there for Scotland or even society at large? Alasdair Forbes Farr, Inverness-shire THE statement by Keir Starmer that the UK would move to recognise a Palestinian state, if Israel did not agree to a ceasefire and take steps to end the war, is more than a little contradictory given previous statements. The statement noted that Palestinian statehood is the 'inalienable right of the Palestinian people' and the UK Government is committed to delivering a two-state solution, with a 'safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state'. It therefore seems rather odd that, despite a previous commitment to recognising a Palestinian state, this should now come with conditions attached. Alex Orr Edinburgh
