The key point I took from this short video was that the fire was nowhere near the back of the car where the fuel tank would have been situated. So it cannot have been the diesel fuel which was powering the blaze. It seems odd that this more than important detail doesn’t seem to have troubled any of our mainstream-media supposed ‘journalists’, not even those claiming to be motoring experts.
I guess the other key point is the more than suspicious speed and uniformity of all the mainstream media to blame the least flammable of vehicles – a diesel car – and the failure of any mainstream-media journalist to question the fire chief’s claim that the fire started in a diesel car. What happened to investigative journalism? I guess it no longer exists when the subject is the ludicrous Net Zero and supposed anthropogenic climate change.
Anyway, as ever more Exploding Vehicles get sold and more multi-storey car parks and other buildings with parking in their basements spontaneously combust, maybe a new word – ‘Carbecue’ – will enter the English language?
The whole world is laughing at us as the West impoverishes itself for no reason at all:
The totally trustworthy Independent newspaper informs us that the catastrophic fire in a Luton Airport multi-storey car park was caused by a diesel car exploding.
Given the wreck that was left of the car park after the fire, it’s amazing that our normally utterless useless, DIE-obsessed public services have been able to identify the culprit vehicle being a diesel car so quickly. There are, of course, huge political and economic interests in convincing us that the devastating fire couldn’t possibly have been caused by an EV (Electric Vehicle), or an ‘Exploding Vehicle’ as they are fondly referred to by those of us who are slightly cynical about what the authorities claim.
Though I do find the explanation peddled by the ever-so-trustworthy Independent supposed ‘newspaper’ and most of the mainstream media somewhat questionable. After all, diesel is much less combustible than petrol and both are much less combustible than an EV battery experiencing ‘thermal runaway’. But I understand our rulers’ desperation to blame a diesel car, rather than an EV as, were the fire and car park collapse caused by an EV, then that would kill EVs dead in the water. And how would we save the planet from the ludicrous myth of anthropogenic global warming if we’re not all willing to replace our safe, economical petrol and diesel cars with expensive, range-limited, useful-life-limited and dangerous EVs?
I suspect there will be a furious battle waged behind closed doors between on the one side insurers and car park owners and on the other side our Net-zero-obsessed political, prostitute-scientific and prostitute-media elites. The insurers and car park owners will probably try to ban or at least restrict EVs from multi-storey car parks while the Greta-worshipping political, bought-scientific and say-anything-for-money media elites will fight this as they know that even the most limited ban will destroy their EV dreams. After all, who will want to buy a car that could explode and cause thousands or even millions of pounds of damage at any moment?
Here, for your enlightenment and entertainment are some EVs spontaneously combusting. There are many many more such videos available on YouTube:
Here we go again. Another attack by our friends from the religion of absolute peacefulness (RAP) on Israel. As the members of RAP pour into Israel slaughtering everyone they come across and then kicking and beating the dead bodies while screaming about their favourite snackbar, it might be worth spending a couple of minutes examining why the members of the RAP hate Israel so much.
‘Israel has stolen our land’
Here’s a map of the Arab lands including Israel:
As you’ll see, Israel is rather small compared to the land occupied by our Arabian friends. The surface area of Israel is a mere 22,145 km² compared to a massive 13,132,327 km² for the Arabian world. Arab countries are 593 times the size of tiny Israel. So it’s difficult to claim that the small area occupied by Israel really has any effect on its Arab neighbours.
Of course, we must accept that Israelis have taken some land – about 0.16% of Arab lands – lands that many of our Arabian friends consider as their homeland. So they are naturally somewhat peeved about that. But it’s not as if there was nowhere else in the Arabian world for them to go. Throughout history many other populations have been forced to migrate away from their homelands and have successfully and peacefully established themselves in their new locations.
‘There are too many Israelis’
Some of those, who wave Palestinian flags at every Labour Party conference, will probably claim that there are so many Israelis living in the Middle East that this is adversely affecting the Arab populations. The population of Israel is just 9.4 million including 1.7 million Arabs. The Arab world population is over 456 million. There are 48 times as many Arabs as Israelis. So one can hardly say that Arabs risk being crowded out of their homelands by huge numbers of Israelis. Moreover, the population density of Israel is 424 people per km² compared to just 30 people per km² in the Arab world.
Another small issue is that Arabs in Israel are allowed to vote and ive in a country where freedom of expression is allowed. In fact, Israeli Arabs have a rather better life that Arabs in any Arab country.
The ‘Tall Poppy Syndrome’?
So, what else could cause our RAP friends to have such loathing for Israel?
The ‘Tall Poppy Syndrome’ occurs when people are attacked, resented, disliked, criticised, or cut down because of their achievements and/or success.
Could it be that in just 70 years Israel has shown that you can take a tiny piece of arid scrubland and through talent and hard work turn it into a successful, technically advanced, democratic country in the Middle East whereas most Arab countries – apart from oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states – are poverty-stricken, miserable, backwards, despotic, corrupt hell-holes?
(left-click on image, then left-click again to see more clearly)
The GDP per capita for Israel is 4 to 5 times that of its Arabian neighbours who loathe Israel so much.
Then we could look at the contribution Israel’s 9.4 million population has made to human advancement compared to the Arab world’s 456 million. Israel’s 9.4 million inhabitants have won 13 Nobel Prizes – that’s about 13 Nobel Prizes for every 10 million people. The Arab world ‘s 456 million population have won just 4 or 5 Nobel Prizes – around one for every 100 million people.
Moreover, Israel serves as a very useful distraction for the Arab world’s corrupt, incompetent, kelptocrat, self-serving, worthless rulers. By constantly whipping up mob hatred against successful Israel, they can distract their populations’ attention from their own utter uselessness:
RAP will rule the world
Of course, lefty, West-hating progressives are rejoicing at the current slaughter of Israelis and claim the Israelis deserve it due to their supposed ‘oppression’ of the wonderful peace-loving Palestinians. These ‘progressives’ apparently believe that if only the Palestinians would be given their own land, where they could install an Iranian-style theocracy which would brutally oppress women and gays and anyone from any other religion, then there would be peace in the Middle East
But perhaps these Israel-loathing ‘progressives’ should talk to the 1,500,000+ Christian Armenians slaughtered in 1915 by the peace-loving RAP Turks, or the 120,000 Christian Armenians who have just fled Nagorno-Karabakh to avoid massacre by the peace-loving RAP Azeris, or the Buddhist Thais fighting a 20-year civil war in the South of Thailand against their peace-loving RAP population, or the many Hindu Indians who have been killed in wars between India and peace-loving RAP Pakistan, or the Indian Hindus and Sikhs killed by peace-loving RAP adherents in inter-communal violence in India, or the members of the RAP religion shot, beheaded and burned alive by the wonderful peace-loving members of ISIL
Someone much more intelligent than myself has said that if the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis laid down their arms, they would all be slaughtered.
A Hamas motto is “from the river to the sea”. This means that they intend to kill all Israeli Jews (and Christians?) from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. After all:
So sadly there can never be peace in the Middle East. All we can hope for is that the hatreds there can be contained.
There has been an awful lot of heat and noise, but very little light, as various politicians and pundits and other gravy-train riders reacted with predictable confected fury to the government’s decision to scrap the northern leg of the HS2 train. One of the many complaints is that, if Britain is to be a modern economy, then we should have loads of high-speed trains just like France and Germany. Unfortunately, those making this argument seem to have forgotten what little they may have learnt in their O’Level geography
Fast trains in a tiny country?
Now let me explain why it is totally ludicrous to have high-speed trains in a tiny country like England
I’ll make this part of my blog today simple so, were any politicians to be reading it, even they might understand.
France is a big country – about 640,000 km². Germany is quite a big country too – 357,592 km². The UK is a small country – about 242,000 km². England is an even smaller country – 130,000 km². So, France is 5 times the size of England and Germany is almost 3 times as large as England. Both France and Germany have extensive high-speed rail networks. It makes sense to have high-speed trains in a large country. It doesn’t make sense to have high-speed trains in a small country.
Now let’s go a bit deeper. The French train route from Paris to Lyon to Marseilles can probably be seen as comparable to the UK train route from London to Birmingham to Manchester in terms of how it connects major cities. But the differences in distances are huge. Paris to Lyon is 292 miles, whereas London to Birmingham is only 128 miles. And Lyon to Marseilles is 488 miles, whereas Birmingham to Manchester is a mere 86 miles.
Or if we take Germany, the route from Berlin to Frankfurt to Munich could also be compared to HS2’s London to Birmingham to Manchester. The distance from Berlin to Frankfurt is 341 miles – much more than London to Birmingham’s 128 miles. And the distance from Frankfurt to Munich is 244 miles – considerably more than Birmingham to Manchester’s measly 86 miles.
The much greater distances in France and Germany justify high-speed rail networks. But squandering over £100bn on cutting just a few minutes off the train time from London to Birmingham and then even fewer minutes off the train journey from Birmingham to Manchester is utterly ludicrous.
There never was and never will be any need for a high-speed train network in England. The distances are simply too short. On the now-cancelled Birmingham to Manchester leg, the train would hardly have enough time to get up to speed before it had to slow down. Why the political, bureaucratic and engineering geniuses who planned the whole thing couldn’t see this more than minor problem defeats me.
Why does this matter?
This matters because building a high-speed line is much expensive than building a traditional (say Intercity 125) line. The track has to be much higher specification to support the higher speeds and the line has to be much straighter than a conventional line meaning there is less flexibility to go round geographical hindrances like hills. So, if Britain really needed extra capacity on the London to Birmingham to Manchester route, we should have just built a much cheaper traditional rail line. Or even cheaper still, upgraded all the signalling to allow more trains per hour on the existing track.
One other argument for building HS2 that has surfaced more recently is that some people are now using the environemental excuse for the thing. They claim the line will provide more capacity for freight trains thus reducing the number of lorries on our roads. But if carrying freight is the priority, you don’t need a high-speed line or even an Intercity 125 line. Most freight doesn’t mind if the train travels at just 50 mph or 60 mph.
I hate to be positive about any politician, but Sunak has made the right decision by scrapping the Birmingham to Manchester 86-mile section. I find it more than slightly surprising that, during all the furious arguments about the decision nobody, as far as I know, has mentioned the utter stupidity of having high-speed trains in a tiny country like England. But maybe this is to be expected as we now live in an age of unreason where opinions matter much more than facts?
One of the big news stories last week was that a revision of Britain’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) figures by the ONS (Office for National Statistics) showed that the UK economy grew faster than previously thought. Apparently our economic growth even even surpassed growth in some other major European economies. The Times reported: ‘UK GDP: Economy grew faster than Germany and France after Covid‘, Sky News announced: ‘GDP: UK overtakes France and Germany as economic growth bigger than expected after COVID’ and even the Guardian admitted: ‘UK economy makes stronger recovery from pandemic than first thought: Revisions to figures show stronger performance than Germany and France’.
As I’m sure most readers know, when the mainstream media is in agreement about a story, it’s advisable to check what is really happening. To keep this simple, I’ll just compare the supposedly growing UK economy with supposedly recession-hit Germany. UK GDP is around $3.16 trillion while Germany’s GDP is about $4.31 trillion. However, with a population of about 67 million, Britain has a smaller population than Germany with 83 million. So a better comparison of the two countries’ economic performance is GDP per Capita. For the UK this is $46,310 while for Germany it’s $51,380 – about 11% higher than the UK. Moreover, Germany’s government debt is 59.8% of GDP, UK government debt is a much more impressive 100.5% of GDP.
But to see what is really happening in these two countries, we need to drop down further to look at a key driver of economic performance – the percentage of each country’s GDP made up by manufacturing. Manufacturing is of course making products that people in your country and abroad want to buy. So manufacturing represents the creation of real wealth. Since 1990, the percentage of UK GDP from manufacturing has halved from around 16% to about 8%. Since 1990, this has also fallen in Germany from 25% to 18%. So, despite the pundits telling us last week that Britain was outperforming Germany, with its much lower government debt and its much larger manufacturing sector the actual figures suggest that Germany has a much stronger economic base than Britain.
However, we can do another short fun exercise to better understand how solid or ephemeral Britain’s supposed economic growth is. We know that Britain is paying at least £8 million a day to house illegal migrants in 3- and 4-star hotels with three meals a day and decent wifi as any lesser accommodation would apparently be an egregious breach of their human rights. That £8 million a day amounts to around £2.92 billion a year. We don’t have this money as our government spends much more each year on all sorts of useful things – education, health, defence, critical race training for all civil servants and hundreds of DIE (Diversity, Inclusion and Equality) managers in our collapsing NHS – than it collects in tax. So the government has to borrow this £2.92 billion. Britain’s GDP in pounds is £2.27 trillion. This means we are increasing our GDP each year by more than one percentage point just through borrowing money to house, feed and entertain illegal migrants. With the UK economy projected to grow by just 0.3% in 2023, one might conclude that, were we not adding over one percent to our GDP by borrowing £2.9 billion to welcome illegal migrants, the UK economy would actually be in recession.
In the last financial year, the British government borrowed and spent (wasted?) around £122 billion. This is equivalent to more than 5% of our GDP. So, had the government not borrowed this money to pay for stuff like 5 million people sitting at home claiming they’re too ill to work, an extra 26,150 civil servants hired in just the last year, billions in foreign aid to the world’s most corrupt countries and other such stuff, our GDP would be more than 5% smaller than official figures suggest.
In a recent equally cheerful article for The Daily Sceptic – Britain is Leading the world in Committing Economic Suicide – I quoted Economist Richard Salsman: “The science of economics is clear: the production of money and debt is not equivalent to the production of real wealth. To claim otherwise is to follow fantasy, not reality – or science.”
My worry is that Britain is in an economic doom loop. As we move away from cheap reliable fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – to expensive, unreliable and intermittent energy sources like wind and solar in pursuit of the net zero paradise our politicians and mainstream media so desperately crave, we now have some of the most expensive energy prices in the world – over twice the price in France and the USA and four times the price in China and India. This is causing companies to off-shore their operations crippling what little is left of British industry. With our economy unable to produce sufficient wealth to support the welfare state, the government is forced to borrow, print and spend ever more money. This extra spending may give the impression that our GDP is growing, but as Richard Salsman so lucidly explains: ‘The science of economics is clear: the production of money and debt is not equivalent to the production of real wealth’.
We are living off borrowed money. But we are also living on borrowed time. At some point, we will have borrowed so much that either increasing interest payments will ruin us and/or nobody will be willing to lend us any more money. Hopefully this collapse will happen when Sir Kneeler Starmer’s bunch of fools and knaves is in power. Then it will be interesting to see how our political rulers extricate the country from the coming economic catastrophe for which their policies are responsible.
Something strange happened last week. The Guardian newspaper published an article which was worth reading. It concerned the massive insurance costs owners of electric vehicles (EVs) are facing.
Here’s how the article started: ‘Driving an electric car should be a win-win, saving money and the planet. So David was shocked when the insurance on his Tesla Model Y came up for renewal, and Aviva refused to cover him again, while several other brands turned him away. When David did secure a new deal, the annual cost rocketed from £1,200 to more than £5,000’.
The article then went on to say: ‘A recent cost of living bulletin from the Office for National Statistics revealed that the price of car insurance – which for many Britons is one of their biggest household bills – is up by 52.9% in the last 12 months.
However, this average masks bigger increases for electric car owners, according to Confused.com. Its figures, derived from quotes, show that insurance premiums for electric vehicles are 72% – or £402 – higher than this time last year, at a typical £959. Meanwhile, for petrol and diesel car drivers, the increase is 29%, or £192, taking the figure to £848′.
Moreover, several insurance companies are refusing to even insure EVs.
The problem seems to be the fragility of EV batteries and the enormous cost of replacing them if you have even just a small bump. As one reader explained: ‘If I curb bump my £4,000 diesel Renault Megane at 4mph it’s a £50 wheel re-alignment at the next service. If a £50,000 EV does the same, it’s potentially a slightly damaged battery and 100% write off. They’re rubbish’.
But I don’t drive an EV, so why should I care?
Reading this you might think, why should I care, I don’t drive an EV? Well, our useless, Greta-worshipping rulers are obsessed with forcing us to either buy an EV or abandon our cars altogether. So, when the politicians see that high insurance costs are putting people off buying EVs, they’ll yet again attack petrol and diesel car owners. If I remember correctly, a few years ago the EU insisted that young male drivers could not be charged higher car insurance premiums than young female drivers, notwithstanding the major difference in risk.
Here’s what Professor Google says: ‘A decade ago, the European Court of Justice ruled that taking gender into account when calculating car insurance premiums violated EU gender equality legislation. Regulations banning the practice came into effect in December 2012 and remain in force in the UK although we’ve since left the EU’.
Gazing into my crystal balls, I predict that charging EV drivers more than ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) drivers, will also be outlawed. So, there will be a massive rise in motor insurance costs for drivers of ICE cars. Maybe our rulers will even decide that as EV drivers are dutifully saving the planet while ICE drivers are supposedly destroying it, perhaps EV drivers may be relieved of paying more than a nominal charge for insurance and therefore must be subsidised almost entirely by ICE drivers?
When this happens, remember you read it here first.
Richard Tice exposes the eco-nonsense
Here is the latest Richard Tice ‘Sunday Sermon’. This now comes from GB News as Tice seems to have jumped ship from Talk TV to GB News:
First, I hope some of you survived mega-storm Agness. Where I live it was a normal September cloudy day with little wind and no rain.
Regular readers will know that a translation of my book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS has been published in South Korea:
To try to help sales of the book, I have had 8 or 9 articles translated into Korean by the Korean university professor who translated my book and published in a South Korean newspaper. I attach below the latest article I have just sent to South Korea. I apologise that it’s based on a blog I wrote a couple of days ago. But I thought it worth repeating as it shows in appalling clarity the simple connection of: – the more supposed ‘renewables’ a country uses, the higher its energy costs and thus the more likely it is for its manufacturing to move away to countries with lower energy costs.
On the news this morning, the Instititute for Fiscal Studies announced that the UK now has the highest rate of taxation since WWII. My fear is that the UK has destroyed so much of its manufacturing (due mainly to high energy costs) that it is in a doom loop where insufficient wealth is being created to support the UK welfare state. So the country has to keep printing and borrowing money and increasing taxes. But as someone much more intelligent than myself said: “if something cannot go on forever, then at some point it will stop”. Let’s hope that Starmer’s Labour are in power when the music stops for the UK.
Anyway, here’s the article I’ve proposed to my South Korean counterpart. You might even want to copy this article and send it to your local useless Greta-worshipping MP:
South Korea must not make the same mistakes as Britain
by David Craig and Seok Park
South Korea’s president His Excellency Yoon Suk Yeol, accompanied by Mrs Kim Keon Hee, has accepted an invitation from the British King Charles III to make a State Visit to the United Kingdom in November. For many years the British King Charles has been warning the world about a coming climate apocalypse supposedly due to man-made global warming. For example, in May 2009, the then Prince Charles gave a speech in which he warned: “The bestscientific projections indicate that we have very little time left – indeed less than 100 months – in which to alter our behaviour dramatically”. And in July 2022, he was still giving the same message when he said: “The climate crisis really is a genuine emergency and tackling it is utterly essential”.
Given King Charles’s many-year belief that CO2 emissions from human activities are changing the world’s climate, we can expect the King to discuss the subject with South Korea’s President during the President’s November visit. And we can be sure that Charles will be encouraging the President to do what he can to reduce South Korea’s CO2 emissions. But President Yoon Suk Yeol should be wary of King Charles’s enthusiasm for decarbonising our countries as this has been an economic disaster in Britain.
British politicians and eco-fanatics rightly claim that Britain is leading the world in reducing their country’s CO2 emissions. Since 1990, Britain’s CO2 emissions have almost halved from 604 million metric tons to just under 350 million tons by 2022. That equates to a drop from 10 metric tons per capita in 1990 to below 5 tons per capita. South Korea’s CO2 emissions are around 656 million metric tons – about 13 metric tons per person.
While celebrating this great supposed ‘success’ in reducing CO2 emissions, King Charles and British politicians, mainstream media and eco-activists often seem less keen to explain how Britain’s reduction in CO2 emissions was actually achieved. Since 1990, the year UK CO2 emissions started falling, the percentage of UK GDP from manufacturing has dropped from just over 16% to around 8%. Moreover, during the same period, the number of people employed in UK manufacturing fell from 4,963,000 to just 2,601,000. A cynic might be tempted to wonder what happened to all those hundreds of thousands of highly-skilled, highly-paid green jobs that the politicians and climate activists promised would be created in Britain by the energy transition away from fossil fuels to renewables.
For years Britain has had some of the world’s highest energy prices due to Britain’s replacement of cheap, reliable fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – with expensive, unreliable and intermittent supposed ‘renewables’ – mainly wind and solar. In 2022, in the UK which gets only 42% of its electricity from fossil fuels, household energy cost $0.41/kWh. In France, where 70% of their electricity comes from cheap reliable nuclear, electricity costs were just $0.21/kWh – almost half the UK price. In the U.S., which generates about 60% of its energy from fossil fuels, the price was $0.18/kWh – less than half the UK’s cost. In South Korea, where expensive and unreliable renewables only make up 7% of the country’s energy, household electricity costs were just $0.1/kWh – less than a quarter of the cost in Britain. In China, where 55% of electricity comes from coal and a total of 83% comes from fossil fuels, household electricity costs were only $0.08/kWh – under a fifth of the UK’s cost. There is a similar picture in India, where over 75% of electricity generation is from fossil fuels of which three quarters comes from cheap, energy-rich coal, household energy costs were only $0.07/kWh.
So, just to put all of this into context, we can look at how much of the UK’s GDP comes from manufacturing – making real things that people in Britain and abroad want to buy – compared to Britain’s major competitors. In 2022, 8% of the UK’s GDP came from manufacturing compared to 9% for France, 12% for the U.S.A., 13% for India, 14% for Italy, 18% for Germany, an impressive 26% for South Korea and a massive 28% for China.
A picture is emerging which suggests that the more a country relies on renewables for its electricity, the higher are its energy costs and the lower is the percentage of its GDP made up by wealth-producing manufacturing.
As British politicians enthusiastically print money and increase national debt in pursuit of their Net Zero goals, they seem to be wrecking UK manufacturing with high energy prices thus committing economic suicide as UK manufacturing moves to countries with lower energy costs. It’s more than astonishing that neither King Charles nor any politicians or mainstream-media supposed ‘experts’ seem to understand or are willing to admit what is actually happening and how the UK is committing an extraordinary act of economic self-mutilation by cutting the country’s CO2 emissions.
If there really was a climate crisis, Britain’s economic suicide to supposedly save the planet might be justified. But as we try to explain in our recent book Climate Apocalypse: The Greatest Scam in Human History (titled THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS in the English edition), there is no climate crisis. Yes, the Earth has probably warmed up a little since the freezing 1960s and 1970s when all the experts were panicking about global cooling and the advent of a new ice age which the experts predicted would cause crop failures, mass starvation, the migration of millions from the cooling North towards warmer countries and wars over scarce food supplies. But this warming is just part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling driven mainly by the Earth’s rotation, solar activity and cloud cover. Moreover, the ice caps aren’t melting in spite of the climate alarmists regularly predicting their demise. The polar bears are doing fine. In fact there may be so many of them that they may have difficulty finding sufficient food. The Great Barrier Reef has record levels of coral. Around five times as much U.S. forest burned each year in the scorching hot 1920s and 1930s as is being burnt now. Even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) admits that there has been no acceleration in sea level rise for the last 100 years. And the number of people killed by extreme weather events has fallen by over 95% in the last 120 or so years in spite of the world’s population quadrupling from under two billion in 1900 to almost eight billion now.
So President Yoon Suk Yeol should be very careful when the British King Charles lectures him on the need for South Korea to follow Britain’s example in cutting CO2 emissions in order to fight the non-existent threat of man-made climate change. South Koreans surely won’t want to commit economic suicide in the same way that the British have done.
Hopefully all readers will fondly remember Cressida Dick. Dame Cressida Rose Dick DBE QPM is a British retired senior police officer who served as Commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police from 2017 to 2022. She is both the first female and first openly homosexual officer to lead the Metropolitan Police Service, or the Met, in London. Dick joined the Met in 1983.
When appointed, New Met chief Cressida Dick reportedly said: “diversity is at the heart of her role“. In 2018, Dick launched a campaign to increase the proportion of female officers in the MPS. At the time, 27% of Met officers were women; Dick aimed to increase that figure to 50% over time, although she did not set a target date. Later she was quoted as saying: “We’re growing, we’re bigger, more capable, more diverse, more scrutinised and better equipped than ever before. The streets are safer and I’m proud of that.”
Despite the venerable Ms Dick claiming London streets were safer under her magnificent management, the crime figures recorded by the police told a different story:
You’ll see crime increased every year that Dick was in charge of the Met only dropping in 2020 when the lab-leaked Sino/American plague lockdowns were imposed.
Just in the year Cressida launched her campaign to increase the number of female policepersons, there was around a 20% increase in violent crime:
As is always the case in our useless public sector, Ms Dick got lots of gongs and stuff rewarding her failure:
From what I have read, Cressida herself ticked a few important diversity boxes: female – tick; lesbian – tick; married to a woman – tick. If only she had been black or Asian, she’d have had a ‘full house’. A cynic might be tempted to conclude that Cressida Dick was chosen for her diversity credentials and not for any ability to fight crime which increased inexorably under her watch. Cressida was eventually pushed to resign (with about £160,000 of our money plus a massive pension) after a series of blunders and scandals.
NHS – Diversity more important than patient care?
This is the latest big boss at the NHS:
When she was appointed NHS head honcho Ms Pritchard said: “I’m thrilled to have been appointed as the first woman leader of the NHS. For an NHS which is 75 per cent women, it’s a particular honour. But I would say that I think it is the diversity of the NHS that really makes it very special. So, really delighted to represent women, but very keen to make sure that the NHS continues to be somewhere that embraces diversity and inclusion at its core.”
Oh dear, sounds a bit like Pritchard is singing from the same woke songsheet as the (in my profoundly ignorant very humble opinion) ‘appallingly incompetent’ Cressida Dick who seems (to an ignoramus like myself) to have put increasing Met police diversity above old-fashioned things like fighting crime.
And now we hear that Amanda Pritchard’s woke, diverse NHS, which is the envy of the world, has proposed spending around £50m of our money creating three new departments – Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, People and Culture, and People and Communities. There will reportedly be 244 roles recruited for across the departments, despite Health Secretary Barclay writing to health bodies in March demanding diversity and inclusion be covered within ‘normal management processes’ rather than by specific teams.
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Amanda ‘Cressida Dick’ Pritchard that, if she has a spare £50m, it might be better spent on medical staff to deal with the 8 million or so people on NHS waiting lists
But the greatest stupidity of the NHS’s current obsession with diversity is that in terms of the gender and ethnicity of its workforce, the NHS is already more diverse than the UK population:
More than three quarters of the NHS’s workforce are female compared to about half of the UK’s population
Of the NHS’s 1.3 million employees, 77.9% are white compared to 85.6% of the working-age population and 86% of the total population; 10.7% are Asian compared to 7.2% of the working-age population and 7.5% of the total population; and 6.5% are Black compared to only 3.4% of the working-age population and 3.3% of the total population
Among consultants 59.9% are White compared to 77.9% of NHS employees being White. A huge 29.1% are Asian compared to only 10.7% of NHS employees being Asian. And 2.9% are Black compared to 6.5% of NHS employees being Black. So, Asians are over-represented at this level while Blacks are under-represented
The only under-represented group in our diverse, vibrant, incompetent, profligate, underperforming, collapsing NHS are white males
I think we all know what happens next and it won’t be great for patients.
Here’s a video I produced a few years ago when the fragrant Cressida was running the Met police into the ground. But I humbly suggest that a similar video could be produced for the equally fragrant Amanda Pritchard:
We’re told that there’s a new Covid variant on the way and that some of us should get the latest vaccine booster. As far as I know, the latest Covid variant is not much worse than a common cold. Moreover, I believe that there has been absolutely no testing on humans whether the miracle ‘safe’ and ‘effective’ vaccines even work against the latest Covid variant. I think there has only been a bit of testing on a few mice. Though I may be wrong.
Yet in spite of the low pathogenicity of the latest variant and in spite of the fact that there have been no human trials of the vaccines’ effectiveness against the variant, the regulatory authorities in both the USA and UK seem to have enthusiastically approved the ‘safe’ and ‘effective’ (and expensive and extremely profitable for the pharma companies) vaccines for the new Covid-19 variant and some of us are being encouraged to get ‘boosted’ .
Below are just three charts from Dr John Campbell’s September 21st video. They’re taken from three of the four main vaccine adverse events databases:
Chart 1: Total number of adverse events for the Covid-10 vaccines compared to three common vaccines from the World Health Organisation VigiAccess database:
Chart 2: Number of adverse events from four commonly-used vaccines from the European EudraVigilance database:
Chart 3: Risk of death from flu vaccines compared to the Covid-19 vaccines from the USA database:
I realise that vaccine adverse effects are hugely under-reported. I also understand that levels of reporting of adverse events may differ for different vaccines. Moreover, with so many stories about how quickly the Covid-19 vaccines were developed and approved, adverse events reporting may be higher for Covid-19 vaccines than more traditional vaccines. So, if the level of adverse events for Covid-19 vaccines was say 10% or 20% or even 30% higher than for other vaccines, then it would be questionable whether the Covid-19 vaccines were actually more harmful than others.
However, the level of adverse events for the Covid-19 vaccines is so many orders of magnitude higher than other vaccines that one might be forgiven for suspecting that there is something to worry about. If we look at Chart 2, (assuming I’ve got my sums right) there is one adverse event for every 13,766 measles vaccine, one adverse event for every 74,800 polio vaccines. But for the Covid-19 vaccines, there is one adverse event for every 189 vaccines given. Moreover, according to the USA’s data (Chart 3), the risk of dying from the Covid-19 vaccine is 169 times higher than dying from flu vaccines.
I believe that in the UK the boster rollout is being confined to older age groups and those considered to be medically vulnerable. But the USA’s CDC is still recommending Covid-19 vaccines for anyone over the age of 6 months. Meanwhile in Germany there is so little demand for the boosters that many doctors aren’t even bothering to stock them. Confusing?
But, hey, what do I know? As Manuel from Fawlty Towers might say: ‘I know nothing‘. So please don’t let these figures put you off getting the latest ‘safe’ and ‘effective’ jab.
Hardly a week goes by without our rulers showing how much they despise us by acting in a way that increasingly looks like they’re arrogantly kicking us in the face.
Here are just a few recent episodes:
The Financial Conduct Authority issuing a report ludicrously concluding that no person has been debanked for their political views in spite of the fact that Nigel Farage has made public the NatWest 40-page report proving he was debanked precisely due to his political views
The NHS announcing it will spend hundreds of millions of our money setting up three new departments employing 244 people to promote diversity, inclusion and equality at a time when NHS waiting lists are around 7,680,000 people and the NHS claims it cannot afford to give doctors a pay rise
Handing £500m of our money to a steel company to fire 2,000+ steelworkers in order to reduce Britain’s CO2 emissions by less than 1%
The Welsh government imposing the 20-mile-an-hour limit in all built-up areas
The London Mayor extending his ULEZ scheme to outer-London, often Tory-voting areas
Our rulers, including Mayor Khan and Prince William all flying off to New York (presumably in First Class) to lecture us useless eaters on the need for us to limit our travel to supposedly fight supposed ‘climate change’
Parliament enthusiastically passing the new Energy Bill with a massive majority giving our rulers the power to fine us up to £15,000 or imprison us for up to a year if we don’t spend a fortune making our homes more energy efficient
Why are they doing this?
What we are witnessing is a massive ‘powershift ‘ between the small people – us – and those we elect to represesent us and act in our interests and the bureaucrats who run our ludicrously misnamed ‘public services’ which continually fail to give any service to the public. This may have been happening slowly over the last decade or so. But it accelerated during the pandemic lockdowns. Our acquiescence to the lockdowns and mask mandates and taking the ‘safe and effective’ fake vaccines showed our political and bureaucratic elites how easy it was to make us do whatever they wanted.
Imposing ever more rules and restrictions on us is a win-win tactic for them. Either we shrug and grudgingly accept it, in which case our inaction signals consent; or we kick off and give them the excuse of further repressive measures – branding us as ‘deniers’ and ‘Nazis’ – and justifying restrictions on free speech as countering the rise of “far right disinformation which threatens democracy”. It’s taken a pandemic for this to happen. But now we know that the political and bureaucratic elites, aided and abetted by the compliant mass media, are capable of pretty much anything, and they can hardly contain their glee at being free from any moral or ethical constraint.
Drilled into obedience?
Professor David Halpern, big boss of the Behavioural Insights Team (more commonly known as the ‘Nudge Unit’) is reported as having said that the country had “practised the drill” of wearing face masks and working from home and “could redo it” in a future crisis.
Prof Halpern said that while fear-based messaging in general is not effective, he defended its use in extreme circumstances: “There are times when you do need to cut through… particularly if you think people are wrongly calibrated.”
Once the public has learnt a new behaviour, Prof Halpern said: “In principle, you can switch it back on. You’ve got the beginning, particularly, of what is called a habit loop: if this has happened, then you should do that”.
Major disasters “leave this enduring trace on society”, he explained. As well as knowing the drill, this “quasi-evolutionary” impact is a strong indicator of future behaviour, he claimed. Faced with another contagious disease, the professor predicted that the British public would start wearing masks again “relatively rapidly if they were persuaded. They might protest, ‘do we really have to do it?’ But once you’ve exercised those muscles, they’re more likely to be reused again,” he said.
So, whatever the new supposed ’emergency’ or ‘crisis’ – another pandemic, the ‘climate crisis’ or perhaps even war with Russia or China – it seems that we’ve been conditioned – “callibrated” as the good professor might say – to obey our rulers and give up our freedoms and even our lifestyles.
David Craig, on October 16th, 2023
