tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29973219989322620152024-03-19T08:48:50.899+00:00Honest Common SenseNeilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.comBlogger431125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-41361832574395307942024-03-07T11:01:00.005+00:002024-03-07T11:16:50.580+00:00Some thoughts on Reform UK’s “Our Contract with You” – Working Draft<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyfiM0fF4eVGNheXuL8oZhe09wtS3jetO-N1MgzsEeVVrI8OSbLjQDwezonXU4VCIjRqz1-GX-elzvXYQrBpesMJKVJcXTbmpa_Ud8gIHFDmSKkx7ErkDro5NmO3Z9-omwzEyO7NWi7qWxk3bcm7F87ZC6PMc07Buh1i5fgwBsAvhdv4otifapj7HXHHm3/s1200/Reform_UK_Logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1200" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyfiM0fF4eVGNheXuL8oZhe09wtS3jetO-N1MgzsEeVVrI8OSbLjQDwezonXU4VCIjRqz1-GX-elzvXYQrBpesMJKVJcXTbmpa_Ud8gIHFDmSKkx7ErkDro5NmO3Z9-omwzEyO7NWi7qWxk3bcm7F87ZC6PMc07Buh1i5fgwBsAvhdv4otifapj7HXHHm3/w400-h400/Reform_UK_Logo.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>(Neil Lock, 07 March 2024)</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have looked at the Reform UK party’s PDF “Our Contract
with You” (Working Draft): [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>]. Here
are some of my questions, suggestions, congratulations and brickbats, for the
policy people to chew over.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The basis of my position is a hard-core libertarian and
individualist one, which leads me to agree with many of Reform UK’s policies,
but to disagree fundamentally in certain areas, like human rights and policing.
Thus, I regard myself as being on the radical wing of the party. My comments,
as you will see, are also quite wide-ranging.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By the way, to issue such a draft at this stage is, I think,
an excellent way to gauge reactions from interested parties.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo41; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">0.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Our Contract with You<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l22 level1 lfo6;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">0.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Is the word “You” singular or plural?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l22 level1 lfo6;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">0.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The downloaded file name doesn’t match the title
of the document. This is confusing, as there have been versions with the same
file name but different titles.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l22 level1 lfo6;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">0.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Britain needs Reform and Reform needs you.”
This may seem like a dumb question, but what does Reform UK actually mean by
“Britain?” Is it, perhaps, a synonym for the political state called “the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?” Or does it mean something more
like “the British people?” Or “the nation?” (In that case, <i>which</i>
nation?) Is it a geographical entity, or a cultural one, or a political one, or
a combination of these, or something else? It would be good to know exactly what
Reform UK means by this word, which is so central to its rhetoric, and which it
so much wants to “save.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l22 level1 lfo6;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">0.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“It [the economy] is being wrecked by record
taxes, wasteful government spending and nanny state regulations.” I’d add “bad
green policies” at the head of that list.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l22 level1 lfo6;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">0.5)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Record mass immigration has damaged our
country.” That’s true, but in my view, it is the <i>planned</i> nature of this
immigration that is the major problem. It has been planned by successive
governments since at least 2004 – and not for the benefit of the people of
these islands.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l22 level1 lfo6;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">0.6)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Net Zero is making us poorer and colder,
damaging British industry and forcing motorists off the road.” A pedantic
point, but it is not just the “Net Zero” agenda which is forcing us out of our
cars through ULEZ and similar; it is more the “clean air” agenda. Historically,
the two have been separate. “Net Zero” is about CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, and
has been driven since the 1970s mainly by the UN. “Clean air” is about
pollutants such as PM2.5 and sulphur and nitrogen oxides, and has been driven
mainly by the EU (at the behest, initially, of the Germans) since the early
1980s.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l22 level1 lfo6;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">0.7)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“A vote for either [Tories or Labour] is a vote
for more incompetence, dishonesty and defeat.” “Defeat” of what, by whom?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">But beyond that, it is an understatement. I’d say
something more like “A vote for either Tories or Labour is a vote for more of
the same, or worse.” Then add to the list of their characteristics a few more,
such as: arrogance, corruption, hypocrisy, bad faith, disdain for the people
they are supposed to serve, lack of transparency, evasion of accountability.
And recklessness, too. In my view, all the mainstream political parties today are
just gangs of psychopathic criminals. That is why I haven’t voted in a UK
general or local election since 1987. (My Brexit party candidate in 2019 was
withdrawn). I do not wish to see Reform UK go that way, or anything like it!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l22 level1 lfo6;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">0.8)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“The two-party system has failed.” True, but again
an understatement. In my view, the entire political system of nation-states and
sham “democracy” has failed. Radical thinking is necessary in order to move
forward from here. Does Reform UK have that?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l22 level1 lfo6;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">0.9)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Maximise Britain’s vast energy treasure of oil
and gas.” I’d prefer “make use of” to “maximise.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo41; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Contents<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l40 level1 lfo44;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Costings can be found at the end of each policy
section.” This is not so. The costings are all together in the final section of
the document (page 29).<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Slash Government Waste<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l31 level1 lfo11;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Save £5 in every £100.” That’s a start for the
first 100 days. But it’s got to go a lot further than that. Inside a few years,
I’d like to see the performance of every government employee and sub-contractor
audited, to assess what value for money taxpayers are receiving for what they
do. Those that have failed to deliver value for money, deserve to be sacked. That
should reverse the 600,000 rise in public sector workers, and well more. And those
that have acted against the interests of those who pay their wages, or have
acted dishonestly towards the people in any way, deserve not only to be sacked,
but to have their cushy pensions cancelled too. This should be done at all
governmental levels: national, devolved and local.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l31 level1 lfo11;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“We make these saving” should be “We make these
savings.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l31 level1 lfo11;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Cut Foreign Aid by 50%.” The whole “foreign
aid” circus is a hangover from Willy Brandt’s commission in the early 1980s. It
should be stopped altogether, except for those very few cases in which there is
a clear moral imperative.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Economy – Personal<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l52 level1 lfo14;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Smart tax cuts create growth and pay for
themselves.” Oh, how I hate the word “smart!” I’d prefer something like “Properly
thought through.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l52 level1 lfo14;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Trust the British people to build a thriving
economy.” Yes. Who else would you trust?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l52 level1 lfo14;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->All the reforms listed here look like winners to
me! As long as the numbers add up.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Economy – Business<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l66 level1 lfo16; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Reform is urgently needed to enjoy a high
growth, low tax economy that is critical for Britain’s future.” This doesn’t
read right to me. I’d prefer something like: “A high growth, low tax economy is
critical for Britain’s future. Reform is urgently needed to bring this about.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l66 level1 lfo16; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The critical reforms look good. Particularly
abolishing IR35, of which I personally have been a victim for almost 25 years
now. IR35 has excluded me from the market, ruined my career, and dashed my
pension plans, unjustly leaving me poor in my old age. But for 70-year-old me, of
course, this is far too little, far too late.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Missing full-stop after “receive no sick pay,” by
the way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l66 level1 lfo16; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Support Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.”
Yes, of course. But it is important also to reverse the culture in government,
that over many decades has persistently favoured big businesses over small, and
the biggest companies and multinationals most of all. Not just in things like
IR35, but in areas such as COVID workplace closures too.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l66 level1 lfo16; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“On-line Delivery Tax at 4% for large,
multinational enterprises.” It’s nice to see a tax idea that hits the fat cats
for once, instead of the “little people.” But I still don’t have any feel for
how such a thing might work. The devil will be in the detail.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l66 level1 lfo16; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.5)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Cut entrepreneurs’ tax relief to 5%.” If this
is the scheme that is now called “Business Asset Disposal Relief,” isn’t this
an increase in the relief, not a cut?<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Immigration<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l7 level1 lfo21; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Uncontrolled mass immigration has pushed
Britain to breaking point.” As above, the real kicker is the fact that the
whole thing has been planned.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l7 level1 lfo21; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Labour and Tories will never control our
borders.” Indeed so: for they were the ones that planned all this in the first
place! And the Lib Dems were complicit in it, too. That said, I’m no fan of national
borders – just as I am no fan of the nation-state. Personally, I’d like to see
migration controlled at a much lower, more local level.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l7 level1 lfo21; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Smart immigration” – that word again!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l7 level1 lfo21; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Leave the European Convention on Human Rights.”
No, I think this is a very bad way to go. I expect human rights, such as
freedom of speech and privacy, to become big issues over the next few years, as
people come to realize just how badly their rights have been violated (for
example through the “on-line safety bill,” or tracking by cameras), and fight
to get them back and then extended.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">One can, of course, argue about whether the European
<i>Court</i> of Human Rights should be allowed to intervene in the affairs of a
democracy – my take is that their decisions should be regarded as advisory
only. But to abrogate the <i>Convention</i> is another matter entirely. I
actually think the Convention doesn’t go nearly far enough! For Reform UK to
have rejected the only framework currently available for securing these rights,
without providing any alternative, I would see as a serious strategic error.
Not to mention the difficulties it might cause in relation to Northern Ireland.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Bear in mind also that the European <i>Council</i>,
to which the Court belongs, is a different and less vicious animal than the
European <i>Commission</i>, which is the (anti-democratic) governing body of
the EU. Besides all that, doesn’t ECHR article 5.1(f) already cover “illegal”
immigration, which seems to be the main sticking point, satisfactorily?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l7 level1 lfo21; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.5)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Pick up Migrants out of Boats and take back to
France.” This is how the boats problem should have been dealt with in the first
place. It is essentially a French problem, and should be shoved back down their
throats.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l7 level1 lfo21; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.6)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Asylum claims [claimants?] that arrive through
safe countries will be processed rapidly offshore in British Overseas
Territories.” In my view, asylum seekers should be processed wherever they apply,
including in France or in a British overseas territory. The Rwanda programme
is, and always has been, complete silliness – particularly since Rwanda hasn’t
been a British territory for more than 60 years.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l7 level1 lfo21; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.7)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Stop the Illegal Working Scandal.” Be careful
what you wish for. Schemes supposedly to prevent “illegal” working could too
easily be used as part of a more general tyranny. Indeed, there’s a case to be
made that IR35 has been just such a scheme!<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->NHS<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l6 level1 lfo22; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Sadly, the NHS is being let down by incompetent
management, bureaucracy, waste, cover-ups and scandals.” Yes, indeed. But I
reckon you could find lots of other areas of the public sector where the same
applies. In fact, very probably, the majority of it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l6 level1 lfo22; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“The NHS has a crisis in leadership.” Yes, but
it’s not the only part of government that has that problem. Police have it too.
As does the public sector as a whole. I think these problems are all related.
They will need a solution which is cultural, not political.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l6 level1 lfo22; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Critical reforms needed. Generally, these are
good.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l6 level1 lfo22; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“All frontline NHS and social care staff to pay
zero basic rate tax for 3 years.” This goes against equality before the law, by
making exceptions for certain (types of) people. Better, I think, to pay them
more, and do something like ring-fencing the tax taken from them so it goes
back into the same NHS budget.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->NHS – continued<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="break-after: avoid; mso-list: l13 level1 lfo25; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Focus on results, not targets.” This is, to my
mind, the best positive idea Reform UK has put forward yet. The culture of
“targets” may well have been a major cause of demoralization for many NHS
staff. But I think that the focus on results ought to be applied to <i>all</i>
areas of government, thus constraining it to work just as a private company
doing a similar function would have to. I think this idea is so important, that
it even deserves to be promoted to the “Our Contract with You” page, following
“Slash government waste and red tape.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l13 level1 lfo25;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Excess Deaths and Vaccine Harms Public
Inquiry.” Great idea, but how to prevent it being de-fanged and side-tracked,
as seems to have happened to the current COVID inquiry? Such an inquiry must uncover
the true facts and the full story, get them out to the general public, then hold
the guilty accountable and compensate the victims properly. There are lots of
skeletons (no pun intended) in that closet!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">I would also like to see an inquiry into the
violations of the human rights of workers who refused to take the vaccines, and
in particular the 40,000 sacked care home workers. And a just resolution to
their cases.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">There also needs to be an inquiry into how model
“predictions” that turned out to be grossly wrong were allowed to drive policy,
in particular lockdowns and mask wearing. The interface between science and
policy has become in recent decades full of dishonesty and skulduggery. Both in
this area and in environmentalism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Energy and Environment<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l30 level1 lfo26;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Our air has never been cleaner.” Indeed so. But
there is an ongoing push, which appears to originate from the WHO and is
supported by all the mainstream parties, to keep on forcing more and more reductions
in pollutant levels, regardless of costs to the people; and to continue doing
so for ever and ever. There ought to be public debate on what are acceptable
levels of pollutants, and on costs versus benefits of seeking reductions. (In
my view, no measures should ever be taken unless the benefits are, clearly and provably,
greater than the costs. “First, do no harm.”).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l30 level1 lfo26;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Net Zero is the wrong bit, at the wrong time,
in the wrong timeframe.” I think this grossly understates the true case. In
reality, Net Zero is not necessary, nor is it desirable. Nor, indeed, can it
ever be achieved in practice. To try to oppose Net Zero with arguments such as
“now is not the right time” is, I think, to concede on the most important issue
of all. That issue is that, objectively, there is no “climate crisis,” and no
hard evidence that, even if there was, reducing CO2 emissions would have any
effect of “mitigating” it. The proven environmental benefits of “net zero” are,
no pun intended, absolutely zero. The entire accusation against us is, and has
been all along, a fraudulent pack of lies. I have written extensively on this
subject, for example here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Further, there needs to be a public inquiry into how
Net Zero and the rest of the “green industrial revolution” became policy over
the course of three decades and more. Questions to be answered should include: Where
is the proof beyond reasonable doubt that there is a problem with the climate? Where
is the proof beyond reasonable doubt that emissions of carbon dioxide, or other
greenhouse gases, from human civilization are a significant cause of any such
problem? Even if there was such a problem, where is the hard evidence that Net
Zero policies actually would “mitigate” it? How well or badly has government
behaved over this matter towards the people they are supposed to serve? Is
“climate science” a sound scientific discipline, and does it use the scientific
method properly? Why were the three “Climategate” inquiries all whitewashes? Why
has no honest cost-benefit analysis been done on Net Zero or associated
policies? Why was the Green Book updated in 2020 to exempt “strategic” projects
from rigorous cost-benefit analysis? Why have people opposed to the green
agenda been rubbished or ignored throughout? In my opinion, there are as many
skeletons in that closet as in the COVID one; if not more.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l30 level1 lfo26;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“We are better to adapt to warming, rather than
pretend we can stop it.” Bull’s-eye! Particularly given we don’t really know
how much warming is likely to happen, or how much of it is due to anthropogenic
CO2 emissions, how much to other human influences (like land use changes and the
urban heat island effect), and how much is independent of human activities.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l30 level1 lfo26;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“The UK cost of Net Zero… is so big that no one
really knows.” This is absolutely inexcusable, and the main reason for it is
that successive governments, Labour, Coalition and Tory, have gone out of their
way to ensure that no proper cost versus benefit analysis on CO<sub>2</sub>
emissions can be done. I have written on this, too: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l30 level1 lfo26;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.5)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Scrap Annual £10 Billion of Renewable Energy
Subsidies.” Absolutely right: but why bring in new taxes, rather than just
scrapping the subsidies? Those that have taken those subsidies should also be
made to clean up the sites when they have become no longer economically viable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l30 level1 lfo26;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.6)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Renewables are not cheaper.” True, and
demonstrable. So, have those, that have claimed that renewables are cheaper
than other forms of energy, not been committing fraud against us?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l30 level1 lfo26;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.7)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Doesn’t mention reversing the ban on fracking. I
think it should.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l30 level1 lfo26;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.8)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Could mention that to scrap Net Zero will require
withdrawal from the Paris agreement, and from the CoP and IPCC processes. These,
I think, are desirable objectives in their own right.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Policing<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l34 level1 lfo28;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Police leadership is badly failing.” This is a
big problem. Every time police numbers go up, policing gets worse; and this has
been going on for decades. Until the leadership problem has been fixed, any
other measures taken cannot work, and will probably be counter-productive.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">In my view, we don’t need <i>more</i> police, but <i>better</i>
police. The problems in police culture must be solved first. If you throw money
at a corrupt system, it will be at best wasted, and at worst badly mis-used.
The NHS is another example.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l34 level1 lfo28;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Could mention that police spend far too much
time on “revenue generation.” Like waiting to catch “speeding” motorists who
are not committing any real crime. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l34 level1 lfo28;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Commence Zero Tolerance Policing.” No. This is
a recipe for a police state. Far from protecting the public, it is likely to make
many people afraid to go out, for fear of being mistreated by the police.
Remember Ian Tomlinson. Do you really think that the police today are on the
side of the people?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l34 level1 lfo28;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Increase Stop and Search substantially.” This
goes back to the subject of human rights, one on which I find myself in very substantial
disagreement with Reform UK’s line. No-one should ever be stopped or searched
without there being reasonable, evidence-based suspicion that they have
committed, are committing or are planning to commit a real crime. I am
surprised and very disappointed that Reform UK favours increasing stop and
search, when less than a year ago, Baroness Casey’s summary report [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>]
recommended “a reset of Stop and Search” by the Met Police. And this is an
issue that has been “live” for more than a decade: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">It seems Reform UK is trying to pander to the Old
Tory far-right with these policies. But I think these ideas are likely to
alienate far more people than they enthuse; including me.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l34 level1 lfo28;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.5)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Common Sense Policing not ‘Woke’ Policing.”
Despite my disagreements with Reform UK on other policing matters, I agree with
this one.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l34 level1 lfo28;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.6)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Without fear of favour.” Should this be
“without fear or favour?”<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">10.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Policing
– continued<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l68 level1 lfo29;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">10.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Scrap
or Reform Police and Crime Commissioners.” The job of the PCC – to hold the
police to account, and so to prevent police misconduct – is an important one.
If the system is not working, then it needs to be reformed or replaced. Either
way, the police must be held to account, by parties working on behalf of the
people.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">11.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Justice<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l67 level1 lfo31;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">11.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->I
am a bit surprised that there is no mention of the Post Office scandal, and the
way in which so many wrongful convictions were rammed through. How would Reform
UK propose to punish the perpetrators of this large scale, malevolent
perversion of the justice system? And what would be the proposed solution to stop
such problems happening again?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l67 level1 lfo31;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">11.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Urgent
Sentencing Review with Automatic Life Imprisonment for Violent Repeat
Offenders.” I do not agree with the removal of judges’ discretion to modify
sentences in those cases where it is appropriate. Centrally planned one-size-fits-all
“solutions” are always likely to lead to miscarriages of justice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">This will have a knock-on effect on “Commence
Building of 10,000 New Detention Places.” This, I think, is again a case of
Reform UK pandering to the old Tory right.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">If there is a problem with the quality or
impartiality of magistrates or judges, then that is a separate issue, and will
have to be addressed urgently.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l67 level1 lfo31; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">11.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Change
the definition of Hate Crime.” Yes, all of us are at risk of being accused of
trumped-up “hate crimes.” The same is true of “misinformation,” “harmful
communication” and other similar invented “crimes,” where the standards by
which guilt is to be judged are not objective. Those of us, who do not believe or
fall in line with the establishment narratives, are in constant danger of
having our voices suppressed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Indeed, this is also a criticism of the “on-line
safety bill” as a whole, which not only greatly multiplies such cases, but
incentivizes Big Tech to remove doubtful material “just in case.” See my
thoughts on these, and many other related matters, at [<a name="_Ref160533891"></a><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_edn6" name="_ednref6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span style="mso-bookmark: _Ref160533891;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Ref160533891;"></span>].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l67 level1 lfo31; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">11.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Increase
budget for both the National Crime Agency and the National Drugs Intelligence
Unit.” I suspect that these organizations may well have leadership problems
similar to the police. Some of the NCA’s predecessors certainly had. As one who
agrees with Blackstone that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than
that one innocent suffer,” I cannot support this idea. Again, we need not <i>more</i>,
but <i>better</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">12.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Justice
– continued<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l58 level1 lfo33;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">12.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Reform
the Child Maintenance Service.” Not my area of expertise, but if it isn’t doing
its job, it needs reform. Also applies to “Child Protection Services.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l58 level1 lfo33;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">12.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Youth
crime and “High Intensity Training Camps.” Not sure about these: shouldn’t the
youths have been educated properly in the first place? Which leads into…<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Education<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l53 level1 lfo34;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“We
want an education system that ensures young people learn the skills, character
and values to succeed in life.” Absolutely. It must also teach them <i>how</i>
to think, not <i>what</i> to think. And to look hard at all the facts before
making any major decision; particularly if the decision affects others.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l53 level1 lfo34;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Ban
transgender ideology [in schools].” I think you may mean “stop making taxpayers
pay for transgender ideology to be spread.” If so, agreed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l53 level1 lfo34;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Ban
critical race theory.” As above.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l53 level1 lfo34;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“It
is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race…” Absolutely: individuals
should be judged, not on who they are, where they come from, or what their skin
colour is, but on how they behave.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l53 level1 lfo34;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.5)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Tax
relief of 20% on all Independent Education.” A really good and positive idea,
and also a fine riposte to Labour’s plans to tax private schools, or even to ban
private education altogether.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l53 level1 lfo34;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.6)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Scrap
interest on student loans.” I think this is only part of a multi-faceted set of
reforms, which are necessary to tertiary education. I would say, fix the
obvious problems like loans, then encourage competition, and private schools
and universities. Let the market sort out the underlying problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo17; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">14.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Education
– continued<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l14 level1 lfo35;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">14.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Cut
funding to universities that undermine free speech.” Yes, and impose fines on
them. “Cancel culture” deserves itself to be cancelled.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l14 level1 lfo35;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">14.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->In
that context, it is unfortunate that Richard Tice chose recently to “cancel” a
party candidate whose utterances, however crass they may have been, were not
objectively harmful to anyone.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l14 level1 lfo35;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">14.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->I
basically agree with the other policies too, except for the two-year courses,
which should be an option only.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>15. Benefits<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l43 level1 lfo36;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">15.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“We
need an efficient welfare system that helps the genuinely disabled, sick,
vulnerable and unemployed to find work.” Absolutely. People must be encouraged
to be as independent as their abilities and disabilities allow them to be.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l43 level1 lfo36;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">15.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->I
can agree with all the specific policies here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l43 level1 lfo36;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">15.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Work
is a cure not a cause” is key. It can give people good reasons to feel proud of
themselves.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">16.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Brexit<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l65 level1 lfo38;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">16.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“The
Brexit that 17.4 million voted for has been betrayed.” Absolutely, and those
that have done this are quislings.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l65 level1 lfo38;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">16.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Scrap
EU regulations with immediate effect.” Yes. This (along with getting away from
the ECJ) is a key part of the Brexit I was looking for. And not just EU
regulations, either. Reform UK must look to scrap all regulations that have
been made by or on behalf of undemocratic external parties, and withdraw from
all “agreements” with those parties. This includes the UN and its “sustainable
development goals,” Paris agreement, Gothenburg protocol and the like. After
Brexit, the next stage should be UNexit.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Along with this, the entire culture of collective
“targets” and “limits” that was imported from the EU, particularly in
environmental matters, must be gotten rid of. Such collective restrictions are
likely to lead to ordinary people being screwed (as over ULEZ) while the elites
simply act as if they are exempt from the whole thing. As “focus on results,
not on targets,” so also “focus on results, not on limits.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l65 level1 lfo38;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">16.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Leaving
the ECHR. See what I wrote above in (5.4).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l65 level2 lfo38; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">a)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“British laws and judges must never be overruled
by a foreign court.” I suggest that decisions of the ECHR (Court, not
Convention) should be regarded as advisory only.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l65 level2 lfo38; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">b)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“UK courts must be able to protect British
citizens from EU arrest warrants.” Totally agree. (But do these warrants have anything
to do with the European Convention?).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l65 level2 lfo38; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">c)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Abandon the Windsor Framework.” Ultimately, the
Northern Ireland problem can only be solved by an agreement with the Irish. The
EU ought not to be involved. If feasible, we should seek to return to the
situation before the EU existed, and talk to the Irish to bring things up to
date from there.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l65 level2 lfo38; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">d)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Independence for Britain’s armed forces.” Yes.
The idea of an EU military is anathema. That said, we the people of these
islands should be able to ally with and share information at need with
neighbour countries such as Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Benelux, France.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">17.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Defence<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l45 level1 lfo48;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">17.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->There
is clearly a culture problem within the UK military. Procurement has been a
laughing-stock for decades. More recently, there have been problems with
housing, and insensitive rule changes, which appear to be causing valuable
officers to leave. And there are serious problems with recruitment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">This must also be considered in the light of changing
UK culture as a whole. Today’s young people have seen through the skulduggery
over Iraq, and the failures in Afghanistan and elsewhere. There is also rising
sentiment against war in general, as shown by reported reactions to a general’s
recent remarks about conscription. One pundit described the reaction as: “sod
off, we’re not going to do anything for <i>you</i>!”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">The war in Yemen, in which the UK has little or no
strategic interest, is attracting condemnation. And Boris Johnson’s seemingly
deliberate destruction of the Ukrainian peace process has left a very sour
taste in the mouths of many people. Why the hell are we being expected to pay
for bloodshed and over-pay for energy, when the Ukrainian situation could have
been defused almost two years ago?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l45 level1 lfo48; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">17.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Increase
defence spending…” I have to say, again, what I said about the police. And the
NHS. The cultural problems must be solved before it makes any sense at all to
throw money at the military.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l45 level1 lfo48; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">17.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“…ensuring
our lead role in NATO.” NATO may have been a useful tool during the Cold War,
but I question whether it may now have passed its last-use-by date. Most UK
military policy now seems just to be as lackey to the USA’s school-bully
aggressions. In my view, UK military forces should be defensive and retaliatory
only, and should not take any part in conflicts in which the UK is not itself
directly threatened. There is a need for public debate over matters like these.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l45 level1 lfo48; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">17.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Protect
our servicemen and women on active duty inside or outside the UK from civil law
and human rights lawyers.” This is a reversal of the Tory efforts of a decade
ago to withdraw human rights protection from service people! But I think it
goes too far the other way. The state has already far too much power over
ordinary people. To allow soldiers immunity for what would be crimes if done by
ordinary people (immunity that was recently struck down in Northern Ireland),
would be to go in the wrong direction.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l45 level1 lfo48; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">17.5)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->It
might be useful to have something about reviving and resuscitating strategic
industries, such as steel-making, which would be required urgently in any
situation of conflict.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">18.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Department
for Veterans<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l15 level1 lfo50; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">18.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->I
confess I am a bit surprised at the huge level of importance Reform UK seems to
attach to this whole topic. But I do think that the proposal “Preferential
Qualification for Key Public Sector Leadership Roles” is a good one. The career
transition from army to police is not an uncommon one, and if there is now a
flow of competent, honest captains and majors leaving the army, re-purposing
some of them to try to fix the culture problems in the police would be worth a
try.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">19.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Housing<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l47 level1 lfo52;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">19.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Population
to grow by nearly 7 million between 2021 and 2036.” This contradicts the figure
of 14 million given on page 5.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l47 level1 lfo52;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">19.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->I
can’t disagree with anything else here, except for the bit about “smart
infrastructure.” As one who objects even to “smart meters” (on the grounds that
they enable individual customers to be arbitrarily cut off without warning or
legal recourse), I cannot accept that digital systems should ever be allowed to
control people’s lives against their wills.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">20.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Children
and Families<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l50 level1 lfo54;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">20.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Not
my area of expertise as a lifelong single person, so I will pick on only a few
small points.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l50 level1 lfo54;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">20.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Mandate
single sex spaces.” While I can see the rationale for this, it would not work for
very small places, e.g. in a small church with only one loo, it must be unisex.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l50 level1 lfo54;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">20.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Review
the On-line Safety Bill.” Yes, and not just for the reasons you give here. See
what I said earlier (11.3) about “misinformation,” “harmful communication” and
so on.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">21.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Transport
and Utilities Infrastructure<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l26 level1 lfo55;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">21.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Scrap
HS2.” Absolutely.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l26 level1 lfo55;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">21.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Stop
the War on Motorists.” Yes, but needs to go much further than just these!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">There needs to be an inquiry into “clean air”
policies, and the science behind them. From my recent readings, I have come to
suspect that for many years there have been failings in COMEAP, the “advisors”
tasked with providing a scientific basis for these policies. There may well
have been dishonesties comparable with those in SAGE or even the IPCC process,
resulting in restrictive and unfair policies (including ULEZ) that have no
objective justification. I plan to work on this over the next few months.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">There also needs to be an inquiry into the over-safety
or “safety at any cost” culture, that now permeates government at all levels, and
which I discussed in reference [<sup>6</sup>]. For example, see Surrey County Council’s
plans here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_edn7" name="_ednref7" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>].
Over 20 years, creeping speed limits have been introduced in my area to such an
extent, that except for two dual carriageway A roads, virtually every road
already has a speed limit of 40mph or lower. (When I moved here in 1986, the
national 60mph limit started at the end of my road). And they want to force us
to go <i>slower yet</i>?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">This is typical of the attitude of those that want
to micro-control our lives in every detail. (I believe all this comes,
ultimately, from one of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, to which we
were committed in 2015 without being allowed any say at all). Every restriction
on motorists ought to have to be objectively justified. And where restrictions
imposed for “safety” are found not to have had measurable positive effect, they
should be removed. As with the NHS, “focus on results, not targets.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l26 level1 lfo55;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">21.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Integrated
Transport Infrastructure.” Judging by the specific proposal below it, I would
have called this “Integrated Road Maintenance Infrastructure.” <o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">22.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Agriculture<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l24 level1 lfo56;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">22.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->I
agree with all this. For me, farming is much more important than the military!
You can survive without missiles, but you can’t survive without food.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">23.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Agriculture
- continued<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l10 level1 lfo60;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">23.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Can’t
disagree with anything here, either.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">24.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Fishing
and Coastal Communities<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l64 level1 lfo61;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">24.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Broad
agreement here, too.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">25.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Fishing
and Coastal Communities – continued<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l21 level1 lfo62;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">25.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->No
disagreements here, either. This is getting boring.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">26.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Pensions
and Social Care<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l4 level1 lfo63;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">26.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>It looks as if there
is much more work Reform UK needs to do on this subject.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Constitutional
Reform<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l49 level1 lfo64;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“We
are ruled by an arrogant and out of touch elite.” Yes: see above, (0.7). “The
two-party system is broken.” Yes again, (0.8).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l49 level1 lfo64;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“The
social contract is broken.” Yes, and it is broken in at least two ways. First,
government ought to serve the people, not rule over us; and it ought to be
allowed power only with the consent of the governed. Yet today’s political
classes simply do to us what they will, without regard for our needs or
desires, without any consideration of our interests, and without allowing us
any real say over what is done to us. We are in effect ruled over by criminal
psychopaths.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Second, some people – including myself – are coming
to reject the whole idea of a “social contract.” Under no circumstances would I
willingly subject myself to being ruled over by anyone with a political agenda!
Like John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris
Johnson, or Rishi Sunak. Or by a prat of a “king,” that is a WEF crony, and such
a hypocrite that he has arrived by helicopter to give lectures on reducing CO<sub>2</sub>
emissions, and by private jet to attend CoP conferences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">By the way, I wouldn’t sign <i>this</i> “contract
with You,” either. Because it contains elements – such as increased stop-and-search
and the denigration of human rights – which I cannot accept.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l49 level1 lfo64;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Leave
the European Convention on Human Rights.” As above, I disagree.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l49 level1 lfo64;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Commence
reform of the House of Lords.” Yes. As long as parliament exists in its present
form, there is a need to restrain it. A second chamber is one way to try to do
this, though historically it has not been very successful. My own idea is that
restraint might be better applied through a new and properly designed quality
assurance system. There should be debates over these topics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l49 level1 lfo64;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.5)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Immediate
end to political appointees” [in the Lords]. Yes, agreed. No-one in the new
chamber should be a current member or a current or past official of any
political party.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l49 level1 lfo64;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.6)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Commence
reform of the Civil Service.” Yes, very much so. But I don’t like the idea of
the private-sector people being political appointees – particularly in light of
the previous paragraph, and of what is said about the civil service in the next
paragraph. And you have missed out what ought to be one of the key features of
these reforms – cutting the size of the civil service by orders of magnitude.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l49 level1 lfo64;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.7)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Enforce
the Civil Service code of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.”
Yes, I totally agree. But doing this, I suspect, will prove a Herculean task.
Particularly since, if it is to be enforced in the civil service, it should
also be enforced in all other areas of government.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Pondering further on the above, I am coming to think
that <i>all</i> government employees and sub-contractors – i.e. anyone whose
work is paid for by taxpayers’ money – should be required to sign up to
something similar to this. That would include MPs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l49 level1 lfo64;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.8)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Proportional
Representation.” I am not convinced that PR, as it exists today, actually works
effectively: it merely pushes the politicking up a level. Look, for example, at
what is going on in the Netherlands. That said, I agree that
first-past-the-post has failed. Personally, I think that far more radical
changes are needed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l49 level1 lfo64;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.9)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“A
British Bill of Rights.” This would be a good idea, if it wasn’t for the fact
that the Tories have already tried to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with a
cleverly named “Bill of Rights Bill.” Which, in the words of the Justice Select
Committee, “weakens rights protections” and “undermines the universality of
rights.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Make no mistake, though, a <i>proper</i> Bill of
Rights would be an enormous advance on the ECHR. But this is a very large
subject – on which I plan to do some writing in the next few months.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="mso-list: l49 level1 lfo64; text-indent: -1cm;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.10)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->I would like to see also some plans for reform
of local government. Its ever-escalating costs are not sustainable. It has used
its powers, as was deviously planned by the UN, to move us all towards a green
agenda, to which we have never had any chance to object. Those in local
government are not held accountable at all, not even to the minimum of scrutiny
which MPs receive. And relations with national government are obtuse, as shown
by Mark Harper’s failure to overrule the ULEZ expansion. I think that local
government, like the civil service, needs to be down-sized in a big way. In
general, the public sector needs to be cut back and radically slimmed down.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">28.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Reclaiming
Britain<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l3 level1 lfo65;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">28.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Christian
values are under threat.” As an agnostic, I think it would be good to make here
a list of the particular values which are in danger.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l3 level1 lfo65;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">28.2)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Affirm
British Sovereignty.” In my political-philosopher hat, I regard “sovereignty”
as a big part of the problem. Sovereignty <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">à</span> la Jean Bodin is the origin of the two-tier system
of “sovereign” and “subjects,” which in my view violates the rule of law, and
the ethical equality which must support it. I think what is actually needed is
self-determination, not sovereignty. That said, I strongly support all the
individual policies listed in that paragraph.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l3 level1 lfo65;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">28.3)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Replace
the 2010 Equalities Act.” As one who rejects “affirmative action” and the like
with the same vehemence with which I reject the racism that originally spawned
the idea, I agree with the need for major reforms in this area. I would
certainly support the scrapping of all “Diversity Equality and Inclusion” posts
and bureaucracies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l3 level1 lfo65;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">28.4)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Comprehensive
Free Speech Bill.” I agree with the vital importance of free speech in all its
forms. “No more political bias in public institutions” is a good thing to aim
for, too. Sharia law I think is a different issue: it doesn’t make sense to have
two separate legal systems being applied to different people in the same place
and time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l3 level1 lfo65;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">28.5)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Commence
reform of the BBC.” I’d sell off the bits (like sports) which can actually make
decent programmes, and simply shut down the rest.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l3 level1 lfo65;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">28.6)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Launch
a Westminster Anti-Corruption Unit.” There are a whole lot of issues in this
area, including how to prevent this unit itself becoming corrupt. But yes,
there is a need to “go after” those in government, advisors, quangos or
commissions that have shown dishonesty or political bias towards the people
they were supposed to serve.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l62 level1 lfo37; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">29.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Funding
of Reform UK Plans<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="mso-list: l8 level1 lfo66;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">29.1)<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->There
are others far better qualified to comment on these numbers than I am, but it
looks like a reasonable place to start.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>To sum up…<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are many policies and ideas here, with which I can heartily
agree. These include: Ditch Net Zero, and ditch anti-car policies and other
planks of the green agenda. Scrap HS2. Sane and sensible policies on energy,
including forcing renewables to be cost-competitive. Slash the size of
government and the public sector, and the scope of what it does. Cut taxes
radically, and encourage economic growth. Encourage people to get back to work.
End centrally planned mass immigration. Stop favouring multinationals and big
companies over the “little people.” Reform to end corruption and to cure
leadership crises in the NHS, police and other parts of government. Public
inquiries into excess deaths and vaccine harms. Draw the fangs of “hate crimes”
and other unjust impediments to free speech. Stop “woke” ideologies being
taught in schools, and cancel “cancel culture.” Encourage independent education
at all levels. Scrap EU regulations, and other regulations made at the behest
of non-democratic, external parties. Treat farmers and fishermen fairly. Reform
the Lords, civil service and other parts of government, improving ethical
standards and stressing integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. Ditch
“diversity, equality and inclusion” bureaucracy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are a number of areas, in which I think the proposed
reforms do not go far enough. For example, I would like to see public inquiries
into: The interfaces between science and policy. The injustices committed against
those who refused vaccinations. And how Net Zero, “clean air” and related
green-agenda items became policy, in the absence of proven cases for them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are also some policy areas in which I, more or less
strongly, disagree. Including: Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.
Zero tolerance policing, increased Stop and Search, and other increases in
police resources, particularly given that today’s police have not demonstrated
that they are worthy of the public’s confidence. Sentencing policy which goes
beyond the bounds of justice and reason. Throwing resources at the military,
without first fixing the cultural problems from which it is suffering.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I believe that, if Reform UK is to make progress towards a
better Britain (whether or not it is eventually able to form a government), it also
needs to succour some major changes which are cultural rather than political.
For example: Trust the people. Focus on results, not arbitrary “targets” or
“limits.” Recognize the psychopathic traits in many of those that have been
mis-ruling over us: such as their arrogance, dishonesty and hypocrisy. Recognize
that the political system has failed, at a level well beyond what can be fixed merely
by proportional representation, or by changing the faction currently in power.
Ensure that all government projects are properly analyzed for benefits versus
costs to the people, before they even start. Self-determination: ditch the
influence of undemocratic external parties. Ditch the culture of collective
“targets” and “limits.” Ditch the culture of “safety at any cost.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If this set of proposals were an answer to an exam paper, I
would score it at about 80%, and give it a B.</p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1708775864/Contract_With_The_People.pdf?1708775864">https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1708775864/Contract_With_The_People.pdf?1708775864</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-five-the-case-of-the-missing-cost-benefit-analysis/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-five-the-case-of-the-missing-cost-benefit-analysis/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/met/about-us/baroness-casey-review/update-march-2023/baroness-casey-review-press-notice.pdf">https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/met/about-us/baroness-casey-review/update-march-2023/baroness-casey-review-press-notice.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/our-work/article/stop-and-search/">https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/our-work/article/stop-and-search/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_ednref6" name="_edn6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2022/07/01/freedom-of-speech-and-the-culture-of-safety-at-any-cost/">https://libertarianism.uk/2022/07/01/freedom-of-speech-and-the-culture-of-safety-at-any-cost/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/brexit/contract-with-you-thoughts.docx#_ednref7" name="_edn7" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-safety/strategy-2024-to-2035">https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-safety/strategy-2024-to-2035</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-15230394893667160872024-02-15T00:17:00.003+00:002024-02-15T00:21:00.990+00:00A stroll in Surrey (3)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfhuuUbbjBBi0Z-U0M-eF5L9qro0rD1fHdp3uqUA1qcmkOgmEiMNtJSjoGPi4hv9DQRNYm312mGezjWrvrNYRBcFZV1ZJgzUrtWoC7JrrZeJu6gyoO6atrbyCdHxJsKATZIIkHzuQk1dska5f9CP1qxcdJ9ijo3iwa8GmgriJvbL90pIW0uW2C0S6I2_Mu/s5184/IMG_1115.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfhuuUbbjBBi0Z-U0M-eF5L9qro0rD1fHdp3uqUA1qcmkOgmEiMNtJSjoGPi4hv9DQRNYm312mGezjWrvrNYRBcFZV1ZJgzUrtWoC7JrrZeJu6gyoO6atrbyCdHxJsKATZIIkHzuQk1dska5f9CP1qxcdJ9ijo3iwa8GmgriJvbL90pIW0uW2C0S6I2_Mu/w400-h300/IMG_1115.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">A "portal" to an easy walk, the old railway track from Cranleigh to Peasmarsh</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK_nlvbAcbQw_p9UVpcg9F8cNprDFZXJjPg1dVHFSe47_-eCNtAGO25Kv5ISI_39R-s5WWCeMK5YJyDspi64fcW2ULN8JDW4I1zcHT6B3gAqhUQk31ZJnZTV4Tzo0LDCBQIbl-FttswvmjlZq2pcrVG1UmtI6lvmZMZjCjqn-1tT7nnsNigIPaQo82QEHB/s5184/IMG_1117.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK_nlvbAcbQw_p9UVpcg9F8cNprDFZXJjPg1dVHFSe47_-eCNtAGO25Kv5ISI_39R-s5WWCeMK5YJyDspi64fcW2ULN8JDW4I1zcHT6B3gAqhUQk31ZJnZTV4Tzo0LDCBQIbl-FttswvmjlZq2pcrVG1UmtI6lvmZMZjCjqn-1tT7nnsNigIPaQo82QEHB/w400-h300/IMG_1117.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">...but not quite as easy as you might think. It's been wet lately. And there's mud and worse</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaD5PyINpcfconwgn7VUg-KhtYXpJTJP8kZuPSazgprLTHURZi2zNX1E8P_0q6moDw58v7YZVV0cvn-1KRt-syU4HH4yV6ts22l2jahZ8FD11SuOZrAu9-WDQk3E1PZJVKXU9Gz3OC_L6cLlz3Oq-pnlL21HJCGKeIi2rR4amlxO9XEVIn7KFPM9Njwgum/s5184/IMG_1121.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaD5PyINpcfconwgn7VUg-KhtYXpJTJP8kZuPSazgprLTHURZi2zNX1E8P_0q6moDw58v7YZVV0cvn-1KRt-syU4HH4yV6ts22l2jahZ8FD11SuOZrAu9-WDQk3E1PZJVKXU9Gz3OC_L6cLlz3Oq-pnlL21HJCGKeIi2rR4amlxO9XEVIn7KFPM9Njwgum/w400-h300/IMG_1121.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Beautiful countryside. But what do I see? That damned devil with his hands framing his head, again</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDePllb25fMvzdt3LlutYj42vhC5HB3QSvZK0_5BeQHR-oJyAl0blA1hcFl0yuqGn152hw7z6wYnJ4WmOvXIZmfoMJH5BRbuU0yRWz5wPuaVMUe2amzMvwXDSjsSVq6xJzc65cAJoKT0Z8WV3GAMlf0ycFZEZWqisZPe4uLJEFGsO5ekRh9c7kD38fb4L3/s5184/IMG_1124.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDePllb25fMvzdt3LlutYj42vhC5HB3QSvZK0_5BeQHR-oJyAl0blA1hcFl0yuqGn152hw7z6wYnJ4WmOvXIZmfoMJH5BRbuU0yRWz5wPuaVMUe2amzMvwXDSjsSVq6xJzc65cAJoKT0Z8WV3GAMlf0ycFZEZWqisZPe4uLJEFGsO5ekRh9c7kD38fb4L3/w400-h300/IMG_1124.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">There have been works going on recently on the Wey and Arun Canal</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2swIR6udhqnzvl-OGWtl1FuT_cC4HKc4asQswCKkbrVAvfwdYAYGkH53gFH-X_i_nSL8-c_Gw6O_fhgwNevyQpzDwmYPmtUsqckS3hX5DL4r0_mAj8XSGHTrWQbVliAIKz5JHrQqS6WYlKLkqJCcWazZKukyeYiF6aPPLEM2l-tPtPCLAcU4U_OHU5cj8/s5184/IMG_1125.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2swIR6udhqnzvl-OGWtl1FuT_cC4HKc4asQswCKkbrVAvfwdYAYGkH53gFH-X_i_nSL8-c_Gw6O_fhgwNevyQpzDwmYPmtUsqckS3hX5DL4r0_mAj8XSGHTrWQbVliAIKz5JHrQqS6WYlKLkqJCcWazZKukyeYiF6aPPLEM2l-tPtPCLAcU4U_OHU5cj8/w400-h300/IMG_1125.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">There are many signs saying "path closed for tree works." Maybe there are some works after all?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9hoyILIqVsVTSCJeLq1rUzRmt5zJGgaXDZ7BUJUJQfhoMatLpP4FDxIs5QzVGiXv9b99E6dhMtj8nF0Elr06HPfQ6rRowFItm8ISuAQM7fpeXQ0mpxLzKNpHfscA92-UCKwNNkjxbvAw5sOFqoofWC5pMEmCzoRGc47W52CZaTmS8af5CISYby03X7mDs/s5184/IMG_1126.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9hoyILIqVsVTSCJeLq1rUzRmt5zJGgaXDZ7BUJUJQfhoMatLpP4FDxIs5QzVGiXv9b99E6dhMtj8nF0Elr06HPfQ6rRowFItm8ISuAQM7fpeXQ0mpxLzKNpHfscA92-UCKwNNkjxbvAw5sOFqoofWC5pMEmCzoRGc47W52CZaTmS8af5CISYby03X7mDs/w400-h300/IMG_1126.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Aha. But where did they get the right to "close" the path for more than three miles?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Sane people, like me, reject these kinds of crap "laws"</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7sE-Fr6p-y3css43ewo4H-0RTtMyIzOeZ_9n000MXN1jSvP7RMREuhyphenhyphenhFDfYyuwi2qZ1Y_elJzFthSOayfjgQO3PcKgP3roXlby0ubRMel7y0OX0-wZzK7yNoIsNMvvDTf88c68ls_H6pFWQFn65lJBuLnNthK_SEaR7Rw9ni3E3OKluPN14aooqzj5c6/s5184/IMG_1127.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7sE-Fr6p-y3css43ewo4H-0RTtMyIzOeZ_9n000MXN1jSvP7RMREuhyphenhyphenhFDfYyuwi2qZ1Y_elJzFthSOayfjgQO3PcKgP3roXlby0ubRMel7y0OX0-wZzK7yNoIsNMvvDTf88c68ls_H6pFWQFn65lJBuLnNthK_SEaR7Rw9ni3E3OKluPN14aooqzj5c6/w400-h300/IMG_1127.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">This time, it's a view from inside the pub</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXlO6l2bFNDfbdn3GqQmJNkDg2pNFMMMxTxD1cjrWbaRqFJk4d50rO9hHTbhhmDE-mEcE9LPl0lW_deQ4X8tBXSVOg7TS6WBO_gp0ofJQFfrc2l-ezmhYId1uqyb2OG7b1AuJ_2O7SHOZVvWQBb3QBaKT-zBDZR75qggE6s9epqw9vFdk8wiiCtvcLwxSZ/s5184/IMG_1131.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXlO6l2bFNDfbdn3GqQmJNkDg2pNFMMMxTxD1cjrWbaRqFJk4d50rO9hHTbhhmDE-mEcE9LPl0lW_deQ4X8tBXSVOg7TS6WBO_gp0ofJQFfrc2l-ezmhYId1uqyb2OG7b1AuJ_2O7SHOZVvWQBb3QBaKT-zBDZR75qggE6s9epqw9vFdk8wiiCtvcLwxSZ/w400-h300/IMG_1131.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">The junction with the Wey, and almost journey's end</div><br /><p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-15436356685409539882024-02-04T02:00:00.069+00:002024-02-04T09:23:46.981+00:00A stroll in Surrey (2)<p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQtz7EkKsOlJ_6zKmqw4ahqiW0_BudQ3BhmI0IP798twnNoaJFYtZvWR-RDjS8UE0EFOoxEor6Tbt2W5xKjtY8Wc0XcAEhq4tngOnTUgTtQiUmnXQ30x0h4rteOq_Lh7Emywkm-R4A1DCzLPeHvEpmcDyAlgrRHPxzGb-8lz6oB75SYTNhF7oLK2uggVVJ/s5184/IMG_1085.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQtz7EkKsOlJ_6zKmqw4ahqiW0_BudQ3BhmI0IP798twnNoaJFYtZvWR-RDjS8UE0EFOoxEor6Tbt2W5xKjtY8Wc0XcAEhq4tngOnTUgTtQiUmnXQ30x0h4rteOq_Lh7Emywkm-R4A1DCzLPeHvEpmcDyAlgrRHPxzGb-8lz6oB75SYTNhF7oLK2uggVVJ/w400-h300/IMG_1085.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">The standard of erudition shown by the local major public school</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(Though, I will say, I too hate those disembodied "vehicle turning left" voices)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnLpDpCbCbtZfAX2YWtuFRO_7h3c-AQoA1OPopA_4RYR2zNnUYPwbfU_7nTeX_JxZeQbzLw1xur_aATTLxKzqrKieFKyO0WBb-e4UkV923GuTv9M0JnsFXf9ZTPJtJO1Mk-YNOmsNgN8YJ6yXXuYPwYzUn382mQ1fakFYjn60pqEnwexNs7q1IFaPI54oe/s5184/IMG_1087.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnLpDpCbCbtZfAX2YWtuFRO_7h3c-AQoA1OPopA_4RYR2zNnUYPwbfU_7nTeX_JxZeQbzLw1xur_aATTLxKzqrKieFKyO0WBb-e4UkV923GuTv9M0JnsFXf9ZTPJtJO1Mk-YNOmsNgN8YJ6yXXuYPwYzUn382mQ1fakFYjn60pqEnwexNs7q1IFaPI54oe/w400-h300/IMG_1087.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Pub stop No. 1, less than an hour from Farnham</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYDkOJN9fPWynPVBlYaPJyzXst9a1ztyFTlncPi82Qg6AkPvdp5pcN2atUWlwXKwFZbXNn5eAU_LvPvqI7RJLtYxbfAK82znLjzUC2z7XK9B8TB4yUiE7Yt44AIOoB_7jJRXEAuSqqwO9lA77qwZu5hMY5TraXHdkUbrH4DTf_0Bti7S0ugZW8M6Rfsh_R/s5184/IMG_1093.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYDkOJN9fPWynPVBlYaPJyzXst9a1ztyFTlncPi82Qg6AkPvdp5pcN2atUWlwXKwFZbXNn5eAU_LvPvqI7RJLtYxbfAK82znLjzUC2z7XK9B8TB4yUiE7Yt44AIOoB_7jJRXEAuSqqwO9lA77qwZu5hMY5TraXHdkUbrH4DTf_0Bti7S0ugZW8M6Rfsh_R/w400-h300/IMG_1093.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Agri-business next to the North Downs Way</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizU9NVqU_AYv7YSiSQjYn7QcGJrWcMCRtCFdSvQTH2f7_m9TQC9XxntwSBrb1JIKt9Sw1zjDBs0jN0UuVp_rdpUgo4BZN4In0KhxypAi-oBJpoyMq_c2YYEQb6bIbLZg-wIkXV5hbKKkXs10yRzS4jfVc-g3Kce6PRupVfE6ML6Ztxdtc9V8nSP9GjTBs5/s5184/IMG_1094.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizU9NVqU_AYv7YSiSQjYn7QcGJrWcMCRtCFdSvQTH2f7_m9TQC9XxntwSBrb1JIKt9Sw1zjDBs0jN0UuVp_rdpUgo4BZN4In0KhxypAi-oBJpoyMq_c2YYEQb6bIbLZg-wIkXV5hbKKkXs10yRzS4jfVc-g3Kce6PRupVfE6ML6Ztxdtc9V8nSP9GjTBs5/w400-h300/IMG_1094.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">But the plants think it's spring. On February 1st!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">And the exorcism (see part 1) didn't work... I think I need another pint</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZFkd4tQEc8s-6KP2YXdQ5uBPCZQyFuyLGo0e6caYdXKuyQAR8dIiMt8cTAFzXre7un8xZVlhh7_EpSlME82Pj9gJPwJXm_4sqpiTZwzFZvVCNXB-5tf2w2SYhP3x5JQiuhom-HGGm2CX5CaOVwBO5JAGW9A5Nf37z5lUF63piXbUf6AjnqnYLRU6o5qQL/s5184/IMG_1097.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZFkd4tQEc8s-6KP2YXdQ5uBPCZQyFuyLGo0e6caYdXKuyQAR8dIiMt8cTAFzXre7un8xZVlhh7_EpSlME82Pj9gJPwJXm_4sqpiTZwzFZvVCNXB-5tf2w2SYhP3x5JQiuhom-HGGm2CX5CaOVwBO5JAGW9A5Nf37z5lUF63piXbUf6AjnqnYLRU6o5qQL/w400-h300/IMG_1097.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Rule 1 of photography: don't point your camera into the sun</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(Unless you want a special effect - but then, you may get more than you bargained for)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix3vgtd412hh6xChprHlK2cb3-l9ADRzsxhxVr8bv6ZCuqGInvKf9QoYKCGlFQcf2NAh88Gn-W-CzJ3jY_3dC2LTomyaod1XuAIVHFMU7ZBY5uE-SUIgLt62Ssg1znUXCyfpSEFHJ7dUbp-vFJs6z4_RL8aSW-_ziiM3_dmPXgaqB1wLFJ-IRMf-tctzTi/s5184/IMG_1100.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix3vgtd412hh6xChprHlK2cb3-l9ADRzsxhxVr8bv6ZCuqGInvKf9QoYKCGlFQcf2NAh88Gn-W-CzJ3jY_3dC2LTomyaod1XuAIVHFMU7ZBY5uE-SUIgLt62Ssg1znUXCyfpSEFHJ7dUbp-vFJs6z4_RL8aSW-_ziiM3_dmPXgaqB1wLFJ-IRMf-tctzTi/w400-h300/IMG_1100.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">One of the prettiest spots on the North Downs Way</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEFvyHhomtfbsoGrS5gGoWuy9OhbnXwxlM1uoCDlyz9UPYxNuqb7-fKmPY8wERoKZRc_cTFFC7uwotCLPcwLbm2d1lyrVC8dclcF-9dsFICuUKmaN-My8HNwzTWx_T2oX53yTS2H_wQ8Yq88a-JuRbNpMmMt64gU3EDtiD9GK_KGRlxvGhZKlrAIdvGDQ7/s5184/IMG_1102.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEFvyHhomtfbsoGrS5gGoWuy9OhbnXwxlM1uoCDlyz9UPYxNuqb7-fKmPY8wERoKZRc_cTFFC7uwotCLPcwLbm2d1lyrVC8dclcF-9dsFICuUKmaN-My8HNwzTWx_T2oX53yTS2H_wQ8Yq88a-JuRbNpMmMt64gU3EDtiD9GK_KGRlxvGhZKlrAIdvGDQ7/w400-h300/IMG_1102.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">The plants are right. It really is spring! (For today, at least)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwFJhH_m6PogePyBTm4TY4Qu0g6RX2CaN2NloN9s5wHqnHqB23rNLo7om_Vp62rCbz2JX-fZOTknwhEeK3TAyQ1u45lHWNTzsZvVWEUom1XwV1fFTQqVvKzFjtKLGbPwikQESDE8HGWdZfkbTLrWGx55gGeT2cgHAk5jBNVOmuFhRic0dQgjf8izrYosXR/s5184/IMG_1103.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwFJhH_m6PogePyBTm4TY4Qu0g6RX2CaN2NloN9s5wHqnHqB23rNLo7om_Vp62rCbz2JX-fZOTknwhEeK3TAyQ1u45lHWNTzsZvVWEUom1XwV1fFTQqVvKzFjtKLGbPwikQESDE8HGWdZfkbTLrWGx55gGeT2cgHAk5jBNVOmuFhRic0dQgjf8izrYosXR/w400-h300/IMG_1103.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">...but some places still look like it's winter</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLbOYqdd5UqK5ZmlDF8VPvuzVKYZMmVzaQlmloZjtV8J7I9wPLIgIeGl-2fWzyGDg9TEbGrZSC_rA7w3OAziFaUCUCm3Ko15B6qcZVgujLQw20vghkz7rZYyTqENVGQjuOM87veqpqrDlsaAZ3l6yKRYOIuXIeF-dElrth4ZWCteW1356PPBQZlNgCqfKw/s5184/IMG_1108.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLbOYqdd5UqK5ZmlDF8VPvuzVKYZMmVzaQlmloZjtV8J7I9wPLIgIeGl-2fWzyGDg9TEbGrZSC_rA7w3OAziFaUCUCm3Ko15B6qcZVgujLQw20vghkz7rZYyTqENVGQjuOM87veqpqrDlsaAZ3l6yKRYOIuXIeF-dElrth4ZWCteW1356PPBQZlNgCqfKw/w400-h300/IMG_1108.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Puttenham village</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW9REbb7hvu6IOMW3NAGsrKX_LEyN_qeNZ8z7n7LorBrJnjT4v0COgaM9OK6gEERP7Vry1P_hLPJZrQee46SPgb0p03hx4jRPHRHR7dSIfI-0CfXbsLdhtykyhOknbNP0ZoqnK2Vs9oJpHIhFtcD77Ijlvi83QeZXJhu5Cop4KEBnHtzNcMq5gZpcXwc5k/s5184/IMG_1109.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW9REbb7hvu6IOMW3NAGsrKX_LEyN_qeNZ8z7n7LorBrJnjT4v0COgaM9OK6gEERP7Vry1P_hLPJZrQee46SPgb0p03hx4jRPHRHR7dSIfI-0CfXbsLdhtykyhOknbNP0ZoqnK2Vs9oJpHIhFtcD77Ijlvi83QeZXJhu5Cop4KEBnHtzNcMq5gZpcXwc5k/w400-h300/IMG_1109.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">It isn't winter inside here. Just in time for one pint</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8K-DepA54knJvTMyg3OU9ZWaAT3K24NeTI7gxCi0amPonPS0k-qj4Zn-3-2AcFv8BNdHZRRir4YjCgqjk0U-zoMRGNGyzhJmjLjDoKPoyz4KX4bNg_fwUytxqgPBRgKNtri-X1N5sBEc4wyk50ev_vLQnn8GlmNTYzgUxFfPhWEPRk0TPTYEnw31zd1Gf/s5184/IMG_1111.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8K-DepA54knJvTMyg3OU9ZWaAT3K24NeTI7gxCi0amPonPS0k-qj4Zn-3-2AcFv8BNdHZRRir4YjCgqjk0U-zoMRGNGyzhJmjLjDoKPoyz4KX4bNg_fwUytxqgPBRgKNtri-X1N5sBEc4wyk50ev_vLQnn8GlmNTYzgUxFfPhWEPRk0TPTYEnw31zd1Gf/w400-h300/IMG_1111.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">The first at Puttenham Golf Club</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWeQsT_1r6sHh5Cq1iwE8gXPBAsg-OIVXyt9aiJ5Ul6724mwSI4hETOrKDY3_B-CgZBvbb59bdm7kl0l1qrXI_jZpZ0HBqzKbAg9-LIJSU3GsHaDQFPoR2ODvA6wbKxtRdrljlCRZuJsJEhQ-wAgwRRIAvNN_XPR5qTYlSm3ks4wnfoVQ2-3HsvV-w0IaW/s5184/IMG_1112.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWeQsT_1r6sHh5Cq1iwE8gXPBAsg-OIVXyt9aiJ5Ul6724mwSI4hETOrKDY3_B-CgZBvbb59bdm7kl0l1qrXI_jZpZ0HBqzKbAg9-LIJSU3GsHaDQFPoR2ODvA6wbKxtRdrljlCRZuJsJEhQ-wAgwRRIAvNN_XPR5qTYlSm3ks4wnfoVQ2-3HsvV-w0IaW/w400-h300/IMG_1112.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Crossed fingers I'll catch the bus...</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-teUZy2t0EaFZAvqou_RJhZA8xwo-5KDI3ngH4gShn2TmpiPJyZsykqTlT5E7cGa-ijyLMEgH1Cmc1qA10nGanJgDgCW5-YWrvm6I24U4KrPfYq0xwUB2-du4bEvUKd2FUA3sT26inUkcJuebQqriPToJUf_LXTEwyLeTqc651JPA5-3zDMwJnKL7SVA5/s5184/IMG_1113.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-teUZy2t0EaFZAvqou_RJhZA8xwo-5KDI3ngH4gShn2TmpiPJyZsykqTlT5E7cGa-ijyLMEgH1Cmc1qA10nGanJgDgCW5-YWrvm6I24U4KrPfYq0xwUB2-du4bEvUKd2FUA3sT26inUkcJuebQqriPToJUf_LXTEwyLeTqc651JPA5-3zDMwJnKL7SVA5/w400-h300/IMG_1113.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I expended a lot of Watts on that last bit, but yes, I did catch the bus</div><p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-22117605895272892852024-02-03T10:32:00.005+00:002024-02-03T10:38:59.338+00:00A stroll in Surrey (1)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJEmWpOAED5gN4BfURw4S2Taunah7H1XIxUy9Jhu7VLT9eFCwOVrTIS2x0czY-XMJ_xtSqElwTPRlq3wKKBeIlBkTVpsFiS-L-My-BIC2_8tRZV3hqTeQ696aySanPkTzNs2uYH1B2k6rxiopbAhZ6RPsEaghLxh-ftnvZlpUc5DzNbXUaJWA78LRBuviY/s5184/IMG_1050.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJEmWpOAED5gN4BfURw4S2Taunah7H1XIxUy9Jhu7VLT9eFCwOVrTIS2x0czY-XMJ_xtSqElwTPRlq3wKKBeIlBkTVpsFiS-L-My-BIC2_8tRZV3hqTeQ696aySanPkTzNs2uYH1B2k6rxiopbAhZ6RPsEaghLxh-ftnvZlpUc5DzNbXUaJWA78LRBuviY/w400-h300/IMG_1050.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">On the way up the hill to Hindhead</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6cfhtcfxYdSnsLCz_S3CP9xWrWETUTaBUhsEdSxem76rng-RtWrvuxli00DrRFq8tcGNuGH6APiK7dYLiD0KryzYPA5EGlLjbETUcEkyAxmXXBsV43XGBntT8-1nXqPMNN2-LXfh91zUWrsjX6fRii7QhfY1IPP36dTNr3hzLUwpuGEK2W8Z347N9JEdH/s5184/IMG_1056.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6cfhtcfxYdSnsLCz_S3CP9xWrWETUTaBUhsEdSxem76rng-RtWrvuxli00DrRFq8tcGNuGH6APiK7dYLiD0KryzYPA5EGlLjbETUcEkyAxmXXBsV43XGBntT8-1nXqPMNN2-LXfh91zUWrsjX6fRii7QhfY1IPP36dTNr3hzLUwpuGEK2W8Z347N9JEdH/w400-h300/IMG_1056.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">The Devil's Punch Bowl</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioyVNMRB7XTJnEem3OtsavLilruA5Two2FVSEycuOHtgGAQlzbm9osaBBYa0VwMgZek0ic64NJs9HqXWm8iL6xvOgsracniLTIh_W0h7PReUBcn44TQhQu5vd5Og1ToejCJWTUFT9aLEtvsz71278f18UsnjOuKF4FGUMD9cwakx_t1CGWHRz28S9OZPij/s5184/IMG_1058.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioyVNMRB7XTJnEem3OtsavLilruA5Two2FVSEycuOHtgGAQlzbm9osaBBYa0VwMgZek0ic64NJs9HqXWm8iL6xvOgsracniLTIh_W0h7PReUBcn44TQhQu5vd5Og1ToejCJWTUFT9aLEtvsz71278f18UsnjOuKF4FGUMD9cwakx_t1CGWHRz28S9OZPij/w400-h300/IMG_1058.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">...and that black figure must be the devil!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(Well, one anagram of my name is "Nick O'Hell")</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBNbpttrYT0zT96nBWcLR_Uj3sL7kJ0tfkPKCLqJZtcP9AHY83BvLnNpfrqXAfca2ZIKJXco4RE_ZcRkMFhn_zpJV63_JDqfebpOFqcvMH1FDVA3LQvTUil6jbbtEEt_Cy-Yxnd6-xpYUdXzhYR-V8Mnbb4SM1AFGPwdsXEXBa4T1QzEbgZZ3jF8MFgp6B/s5184/IMG_1061.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBNbpttrYT0zT96nBWcLR_Uj3sL7kJ0tfkPKCLqJZtcP9AHY83BvLnNpfrqXAfca2ZIKJXco4RE_ZcRkMFhn_zpJV63_JDqfebpOFqcvMH1FDVA3LQvTUil6jbbtEEt_Cy-Yxnd6-xpYUdXzhYR-V8Mnbb4SM1AFGPwdsXEXBa4T1QzEbgZZ3jF8MFgp6B/w400-h300/IMG_1061.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Pub No. 1 of the day</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKFLbicr3MvaQnkkVpcUOlSjgw1vkQGP9Yn0wyfUCoR4m4D88MZ07rHzqQH15zIwYv1-rIjRIQHzEfPQkeZk-I5jL7mfGJb-FoxfYXRypeWZGoEJ1H_dZlRkFhNnjfa2D1srNxzK3le5GbhkjWHacVC1LmUR9Y5fvvjTxE-QcLRwiUH_X2V9fw6w5LUsHZ/s5184/IMG_1064.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKFLbicr3MvaQnkkVpcUOlSjgw1vkQGP9Yn0wyfUCoR4m4D88MZ07rHzqQH15zIwYv1-rIjRIQHzEfPQkeZk-I5jL7mfGJb-FoxfYXRypeWZGoEJ1H_dZlRkFhNnjfa2D1srNxzK3le5GbhkjWHacVC1LmUR9Y5fvvjTxE-QcLRwiUH_X2V9fw6w5LUsHZ/w400-h300/IMG_1064.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">The Punch Bowl, showing the line of the old A3</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3isD8XZxrWRLdt-oZ03-Dc8d8NkIAJdg0C6Wr1WnB_DEXlhlmZfM9JHXYRwmbzwjKZBzlWgShUYqBOg58fXVLmB8c4dnsGt5eIIpXrHEQAMBW9akrfZJZR5Cr52zmyI5AJW3Eitpc00hQXZ-Xln_giepjbaK_sUd0F-qtgyhPOCsDIn5vGslvmsmXzcQF/s5184/IMG_1067.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3isD8XZxrWRLdt-oZ03-Dc8d8NkIAJdg0C6Wr1WnB_DEXlhlmZfM9JHXYRwmbzwjKZBzlWgShUYqBOg58fXVLmB8c4dnsGt5eIIpXrHEQAMBW9akrfZJZR5Cr52zmyI5AJW3Eitpc00hQXZ-Xln_giepjbaK_sUd0F-qtgyhPOCsDIn5vGslvmsmXzcQF/w400-h300/IMG_1067.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Gibbet Hill</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6vq_sHcjkyrO6TQYCLNX47J0iExOydLOyk_JckUqT2J70rg0cK9SnldLCaHJNqm_V5T4tRDkGAdMclh_raavsEOK9vnrTW4n-knyNX8QVAz6Dnz3VQ1zrpnBxzTsMOcHUe584W7bHsdL5WldzSdBTz89faFP_kqt_Pqk6S3IptnB8zs0Be2TJ5bal7bHl/s5184/IMG_1069.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6vq_sHcjkyrO6TQYCLNX47J0iExOydLOyk_JckUqT2J70rg0cK9SnldLCaHJNqm_V5T4tRDkGAdMclh_raavsEOK9vnrTW4n-knyNX8QVAz6Dnz3VQ1zrpnBxzTsMOcHUe584W7bHsdL5WldzSdBTz89faFP_kqt_Pqk6S3IptnB8zs0Be2TJ5bal7bHl/w400-h300/IMG_1069.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Thursley village... and that devil is there again</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtKaXH64-gPY6R7W6ghIRf5iTEOQBSxZIRgY7DmVzuKBgZV85RmkSGhN9ni4tVSVsbrcyiCrZZYhD9gndn2b1J4L7ugn_Ce7g69iJ70wBfVdpDMGj8NQJSXRImuZpmIYzliYfbP5wsOppRUNkhSwrSXJ8Bohd7b7scv6-83Aei882cS8VNdRf1s4_OZxcv/s5184/IMG_1070.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtKaXH64-gPY6R7W6ghIRf5iTEOQBSxZIRgY7DmVzuKBgZV85RmkSGhN9ni4tVSVsbrcyiCrZZYhD9gndn2b1J4L7ugn_Ce7g69iJ70wBfVdpDMGj8NQJSXRImuZpmIYzliYfbP5wsOppRUNkhSwrSXJ8Bohd7b7scv6-83Aei882cS8VNdRf1s4_OZxcv/w400-h300/IMG_1070.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Have I come to the right place for the exorcist?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe0MYRl35nJkQBwECuyb2zzRPk3LlDklgMWn2K6dRP_U0t2QnxgNyGFu5Tj3nkZmx6jG3oQwBiUusVO7eZ7bTq4W29wvyHkD2Mw3I218YH9itggiBF9plBdK3F6WjfO7WZXyYlR27Rr4hU0wtvs5iUdLUvoXFYeWFX0rSwhf2F_p1SLzeZ_7OXfeW-Gyep/s5184/IMG_1071.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe0MYRl35nJkQBwECuyb2zzRPk3LlDklgMWn2K6dRP_U0t2QnxgNyGFu5Tj3nkZmx6jG3oQwBiUusVO7eZ7bTq4W29wvyHkD2Mw3I218YH9itggiBF9plBdK3F6WjfO7WZXyYlR27Rr4hU0wtvs5iUdLUvoXFYeWFX0rSwhf2F_p1SLzeZ_7OXfeW-Gyep/w400-h300/IMG_1071.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">...but no. I find this place of worship, Pub No. 2, far more wholesome</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWA-4xhR2Cs2YT_7bfUSDNEwuWVSsHSLgFhJryu2WIls8FIbAcVpwTZu-HUKBe7ktXldBXxqvsob6NnVyblRLAaZ33H8e9fJPI1jpWf3G4cLf8cwLtYTcvFFGEvOP19utlBEYtIasC964wQWjrrvkNamQ5dp9yvuffifZ4HSi9jquOfle5TN6wsplPZnix/s5184/IMG_1072.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWA-4xhR2Cs2YT_7bfUSDNEwuWVSsHSLgFhJryu2WIls8FIbAcVpwTZu-HUKBe7ktXldBXxqvsob6NnVyblRLAaZ33H8e9fJPI1jpWf3G4cLf8cwLtYTcvFFGEvOP19utlBEYtIasC964wQWjrrvkNamQ5dp9yvuffifZ4HSi9jquOfle5TN6wsplPZnix/w400-h300/IMG_1072.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Thursley Nature Reserve</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9h6m5jJI-aG9AUdFjJ58ocUbQ8HWxQg89sdTC-wETeIv3QXJJOJqEXcbjnPVHt_wDVWVQWpsWKdzLR8lRx2NwHV4Hf3o0dFFvHndTYe4iYPTj3afSIx0qID4VJ3T5WGA-wp7FNjBSdYKXEDTpfv0_ueDGQ3KRHhyphenhyphenv0mG9w6HRw-LqSDtIf4rMh7C37A0n/s5184/IMG_1077.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9h6m5jJI-aG9AUdFjJ58ocUbQ8HWxQg89sdTC-wETeIv3QXJJOJqEXcbjnPVHt_wDVWVQWpsWKdzLR8lRx2NwHV4Hf3o0dFFvHndTYe4iYPTj3afSIx0qID4VJ3T5WGA-wp7FNjBSdYKXEDTpfv0_ueDGQ3KRHhyphenhyphenv0mG9w6HRw-LqSDtIf4rMh7C37A0n/w400-h300/IMG_1077.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Hammer Pond - totally transformed since last year's works</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7lZaoXKgdz3GicmZ5hQVJmK5HxZz191irjD9Vla2zkn5Blai9PRMSCLAlm0GhtzLYTiyDT9az2GxC0rnXl6aOacmCC9qmu6uMjdtitKi8JR0jpncsVVO5k0643qXvR-uimORWGIGNb7FT1EvKOlRqVvLjV4wHkfyxevBiflEX5Nb9vcT4ftxjE3tLybN8/s5184/IMG_1079.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7lZaoXKgdz3GicmZ5hQVJmK5HxZz191irjD9Vla2zkn5Blai9PRMSCLAlm0GhtzLYTiyDT9az2GxC0rnXl6aOacmCC9qmu6uMjdtitKi8JR0jpncsVVO5k0643qXvR-uimORWGIGNb7FT1EvKOlRqVvLjV4wHkfyxevBiflEX5Nb9vcT4ftxjE3tLybN8/w400-h300/IMG_1079.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">And finally, back to a track I know</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI1is31gcRpOtr3MM9z1-xWD-aiUs9QWgVgbRpBCMPQ5O87vcv-SYJZsy0ykD6fZFdPJnJxyBgL6u4s7JXvTvmNnfktJeKb997UTFjClnWYEBRWgyAc23S0rIuW3dqupPQ__DEPHccrU2KM-vy5w7LHWutIW93HnKS_SzZfzjUMF9LF9-h0C6trbC1Ue3i/s5184/IMG_1082.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI1is31gcRpOtr3MM9z1-xWD-aiUs9QWgVgbRpBCMPQ5O87vcv-SYJZsy0ykD6fZFdPJnJxyBgL6u4s7JXvTvmNnfktJeKb997UTFjClnWYEBRWgyAc23S0rIuW3dqupPQ__DEPHccrU2KM-vy5w7LHWutIW93HnKS_SzZfzjUMF9LF9-h0C6trbC1Ue3i/w400-h300/IMG_1082.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">...and (almost) back to civilization</div><p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-18513510372613853742024-01-30T19:44:00.001+00:002024-01-30T19:44:43.297+00:00A comment on a Nigel Farage YouTube video<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFZeqttOAse1O3F6EKpGGVZPmIH9yTwRoS0lp5gp5uHX2VLJkPDxA6tXX_3TaaQ1cWFm_C66F4kxoa5BcpEbTWE6pO0NCN9PdQKCsM5OwycgD4DjvXXqKXB8_ncQD8YBybwWjG3hK4EYeuvzIgQeaotkkhczoDv58GyW_yi0jjeIOmYQBz-MHDgAP_iWNq/s198/youtube.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="187" data-original-width="198" height="378" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFZeqttOAse1O3F6EKpGGVZPmIH9yTwRoS0lp5gp5uHX2VLJkPDxA6tXX_3TaaQ1cWFm_C66F4kxoa5BcpEbTWE6pO0NCN9PdQKCsM5OwycgD4DjvXXqKXB8_ncQD8YBybwWjG3hK4EYeuvzIgQeaotkkhczoDv58GyW_yi0jjeIOmYQBz-MHDgAP_iWNq/w400-h378/youtube.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal">I have become aware that, when I leave a pertinent comment
on a political YouTube video, for example on GB News or TalkTV, it usually disappears
very quickly. Often, it is gone the second time I look, even when I order by “newest
first.” Happily, this particular comment was still there 15 minutes after I
submitted it. But I squirreled it away anyway.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is the comment I left on Nigel Farage’s video here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hZuVXKmbys">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hZuVXKmbys</a>.
I think it summarizes fairly well my view from the radical wing of the Reform
UK party.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">* * *<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nigel, for me immigration is not the major issue today. (1)
Getting rid of “net(t) zero” and other green insanities. (2) Sane and sensible
energy policies (fracking!). (3) Cutting taxes. Hugely. (4) Shrinking the state
and its “public sector” by at least an order of magnitude, including sacking a
lot of civil servants and county and local council CEOs. Those are my top four.
Immigration comes a poor fifth.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But that said, you are right that immigration into the UK
today is a major problem. But the people in boats are just a side-show. The
real problem is not that massive “legal” immigration is “uncontrolled,” but
that it has been planned. By whom, and for what purpose? My local council were
told a decade or so ago to plan for a 20 per cent population increase inside 20
years. When did we ever vote for this? And why were we never allowed a chance
to oppose it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You are, of course, right about the consequences. Many
people falling off the bottom of the housing ladder, and many more having to
accept far less space and privacy than they have a right to expect. Decaying
infrastructure, worsening quality of life for everyone. Companies having their
premises taken for housing, so people then need to travel further to their
jobs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think a good question to ask is: Who did this to us? And
why? For many years, I answered this with: The statists are trying to establish
a tax base for the future. So they can kick the welfare state can down the road
for a decade or two, and it doesn't fall apart till after they're dead. But
recently, I find myself contemplating a more sinister motive: They are seeking
to destroy cultural cohesion. As a step, perhaps, towards ending all pretence
of sham “democracy.” And then, towards what?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a Reform party member, I really do think that you and the
party need to focus away from minor issues like the boats, and towards the
things that really matter. This video is a half decent start, but there is so
much more we need to do.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p></div><p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-47357667915555552292024-01-27T16:48:00.000+00:002024-01-27T16:48:31.135+00:00We the people of Surrey have not approved Surrey County Council’s membership of UK100<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2KispupsiSBTraTKtwSXZ-7nAXNnp7-82T07eVsE3DIp4TjDDjwwXGwc5cGQwKegTGt-UWkPoQtchWCtxV0UmVGStOaAKJpol3wzbnnD2Rwm0SbD7ayQ8oIaITxcSv4xEIo9ygfg8bnmQexYNzaXwxkmsfKAO_1L_JGk_Hj83oke1DMh8Hz5rFq18_G3C/s1004/surrey05.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="713" data-original-width="1004" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2KispupsiSBTraTKtwSXZ-7nAXNnp7-82T07eVsE3DIp4TjDDjwwXGwc5cGQwKegTGt-UWkPoQtchWCtxV0UmVGStOaAKJpol3wzbnnD2Rwm0SbD7ayQ8oIaITxcSv4xEIo9ygfg8bnmQexYNzaXwxkmsfKAO_1L_JGk_Hj83oke1DMh8Hz5rFq18_G3C/s320/surrey05.gif" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I sent the following message today to "my" Surrey county councillor. It contains a sentence which I could not resist using as the title of this missive.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk157250519">Dear Ms Rivers,<o:p></o:p></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;">I have been reminded
by the Telegraph [</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/pr2701.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;">] that Surrey County Council, on which you
are my “representative,” has for some time been a member of an organization
called UK100. This is an activist organization which, according to its website,
“will continue to lead the UK’s response to climate change, acting sooner than
the government’s goal by making substantial progress within the next decade to
deliver Net Zero.” UK100, as shown by this recent report [</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/pr2701.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;">], is funded through chains originating from
billionaires Christopher Hohn and Michael Bloomberg, both known to be extreme
climate activists.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;">I am very concerned
as to how the members of a county council can feel able to be part of, or to
devote taxpayers’ resources to, such an extremist organization, without the
people of that county having had the chance to oppose or even to comment on
such a membership.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;">The enormous costs
and inconveniences of “net zero” policies are becoming more and more apparent.
As, for example, in the recently announced job losses at the Port Talbot
steelworks. And anti-car policies, such as the ULEZ expansion, are also causing
great suffering to those who are caught in the trap of being too poor either to
pay the fees or to upgrade their cars.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;">Moreover, it is
slowly starting to penetrate into ordinary people’s minds that the repeated
claims that renewable energy is cheap are falsehoods, and even outright lies.
That no proper cost versus benefit analysis of “net zero” has been done. And
even that the entire concept of “net zero” is flawed, because the claimed
“climate crisis,” which “net zero” policies are supposed to alleviate, does not
in fact exist. There is simply no objective evidence for any such thing. (As I
have shown, in a series of essays which I sent you last April).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;">I hope that you will
agree that for a council at any level to continue to push extremist policies
which, as is becoming more and more obvious, are not only unjustified but also
very clearly against the interests of the people the council is supposed to
serve, is a travesty of any idea of democracy. We the people of Surrey have not
approved Surrey County Council’s membership of UK100. I look forward to your
confirmation that Surrey County Council will be terminating its membership of UK100
at the very earliest possible opportunity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;">I note that you are
also on my list of Waverley Borough Councillors, so I would ask you also to
confirm that Waverley will be taking no steps towards joining UK100 or any
similar organization.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;">Yours sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk157250519;">Neil Lock</span></p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/pr2701.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/06/councils-undemocratic-pledges-beat-governments-net-zero/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/06/councils-undemocratic-pledges-beat-governments-net-zero/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/pr2701.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://togetherdeclaration.org/report/">https://togetherdeclaration.org/report/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><br /></div><p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-12914366706808184942024-01-15T11:18:00.004+00:002024-01-15T11:20:01.224+00:00A reply from "my" MP on ULEZ<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeRZahPflCTM8oqhg-OLVb4apKuv3udArlgQrmad7gxwwBONRsvfCtL8GkjhyphenhyphenW0sXYczq2Hgl0Cr0sEDiDbh3qEzNzcsc20qTJelFBNsRA1Touqabc6yvn2eqrVbhdCu_HnHMZkVdsA8E7JpILThZMS8Mm7fqN0p-Hv5iPcp4F1FzI0k4KgM8f2eqpb0HP/s225/ulez.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeRZahPflCTM8oqhg-OLVb4apKuv3udArlgQrmad7gxwwBONRsvfCtL8GkjhyphenhyphenW0sXYczq2Hgl0Cr0sEDiDbh3qEzNzcsc20qTJelFBNsRA1Touqabc6yvn2eqrVbhdCu_HnHMZkVdsA8E7JpILThZMS8Mm7fqN0p-Hv5iPcp4F1FzI0k4KgM8f2eqpb0HP/s1600/ulez.png" width="225" /></a></div><br /><span style="background-color: white;">Last week, I received a reply from Jeremy Hunt MP to
an e-mail I sent him on 11</span><sup style="background-color: white;">th</sup><span style="background-color: white;"> September 2023 regarding ULEZ expansion.
I thought it would be worth re-publishing both his reply and my recent
response.</span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">Dear Neil,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">Thank
you for your email regarding the ULEZ expansion and I apologise for
the immense delay in my reply. I would just note that due to transport
within London being devolved to the Mayor of London, he is not legally
required to consult either central or local government before implementing the
scheme. But the government is clear that the Mayor needs to put TFL on a
financially sustainable footing and disagrees with the expansion of ULEZ.
I do also welcome that the government prevented the mayor from using government
money to fund the expansion.<br />
<br />
I do understand your comments on the democracy surrounding ULEZ and the
negative impact of the expansion on those who travel into London by car.
However, regarding tradespeople, it may be useful to know that self-employed
tradespeople driving vehicles that do not comply with ULEZ may be able to
recoup the money spent on the ULEZ charge via their tax returns. This is only
if the journey that incurred the charge relates to the sole purpose of their
trade.<br />
<br />
Regarding cameras, I do understand your concerns but I hope it is of at
least some comfort that TFL has confirmed that it does not use live facial
recognition technology nor intends to deploy it for purposes of enforcing ULEZ.
I hope it will also be useful to know that if there were ever any
proposed extensions to a system which involved images or information is
collected, this will be subject to consultation before the decision is taken. I
hope this has been useful and if you have any further questions, please do not
hesitate to let me know.</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 12pt;">Finally, if you do not already receive it, would it be helpful for
you to receive my weekly update of events in Westminster and locally? You can
sign up </span><a href="https://swsurreyconservatives.us18.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=4f4f5e3fd7389acfe6e6b9a90&id=e04387304e" style="background-color: transparent;"><span face=""Helvetica",sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">here</span></a><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 12pt;"> and
can unsubscribe at any time. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">
Thank you again for writing to me.<br />
<br />
Best wishes,<br />
<br />
Jeremy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border-bottom: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; border: none; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: 107%; margin-bottom: 8pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><br /></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 107%; margin-bottom: 8pt;">Dear Mr Hunt,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for your reply to my e-mail of 11<sup>th</sup> September.
Given that the government disapproved of the ULEZ expansion, I am still
uncertain as to why Mark Harper MP chose not to overrule it on the grounds that
it went against the government’s priorities, as I understand he had the right
to do.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With regard to tradespeople being able to recoup the ULEZ
charge, I am well aware of the “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” test, and if
it applies here, this is OK so far as it goes. But it does nothing for people
whose businesses are impacted because their customers can no longer get
cost-effectively to and from them. Nor does it do anything for employees whose
place of work is now inside the zone. The case of the West Lodge Park hotel
comes to mind as an example of both these.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As to cameras, I would say that in this context the use of
facial recognition technology is all but a red herring. Since most drivers
drive their own cars, automatic number plate recognition is already enough to
trace individuals as they move around. Blanket ANPR without a reasonable
suspicion of real wrongdoing, I consider, is in itself a violation of the
rights of privacy and freedom of movement.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As to consultations, after previous occasions such as the
bringing forward of the deadline for banning new petrol and diesel cars – where
all submissions which went against the party line were completely ignored – and
the “consultation” on the ULEZ expansion itself, which went ahead despite a large
majority being opposed to it, I am afraid that I now find the words “government
consultation” to be something of a sick joke. I do not think either your party,
or any of the other mainstream parties, have any real understanding of how far
you have all lost the trust and the respect of the people you are supposed to
be serving.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All this said, I do appreciate the time you have taken to
reply to me on this, and I look forward in particular to your upcoming reply to
the e-mail I sent you near the end of November regarding cost-benefit analysis
for “Net Zero.”</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yours sincerely,</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Neil Lock</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-73293396407381279702024-01-02T20:33:00.004+00:002024-01-02T21:57:57.130+00:00A tour of last year’s “Bandamonium” Pubs<p>My brass band, the Liss Band, is planning to go to the
“Bandamonium” festival, based in Hatherleigh, Devon, in late July of the year
we have just begun. It’s our 50<sup>th</sup> anniversary this year. And though
I wasn’t quite a “founder member,” I did join the band in its first calendar
year, 1974. And I’ve written a book to celebrate the band’s 50<sup>th</sup>.
More on that (much) later.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The event is described as “the Whit Friday marches, but
without the marching.” So, each band is transported by coach around various
pubs, at each of which they play a brief programme. After playing, they have a
drink and move on to the next. At the end of the day, everyone meets in
Hatherleigh, and plays together. We might have as many as 20 bands.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I had a list of the six pubs from last year. I thought it
might be a decent use of the New Year break to go and survey them. So, here
they are. New Year’s Day was probably the worst day I could possibly have
chosen, because not only was it a bank holiday, but a Monday too, on which most
rural pubs these days would be closed anyway. So, all were closed except one. And
the weather was… inclement would be a kind word.</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicNTiMpCbBwDcz4WvB8UqzrSp8T1YR9_Cz4bmklBnBppVEc4QsZsVdaAVd35oAoTI7_3bjqKWs-oozyjmsHTXwnWYhTnpO5Li8IW7H06gyKYuwO1NkTKeeavKdngpOZk7p8pnNwPirx1yVJO7zEDE-8z8M7PCatJm-7dLsUEn6e_XG-83rcz5Llq2QpA6R/s5184/IMG_1024.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicNTiMpCbBwDcz4WvB8UqzrSp8T1YR9_Cz4bmklBnBppVEc4QsZsVdaAVd35oAoTI7_3bjqKWs-oozyjmsHTXwnWYhTnpO5Li8IW7H06gyKYuwO1NkTKeeavKdngpOZk7p8pnNwPirx1yVJO7zEDE-8z8M7PCatJm-7dLsUEn6e_XG-83rcz5Llq2QpA6R/w400-h300/IMG_1024.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><u>The King’s Arms, South Zeal</u></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtxhmSAuLqMuYnLSTgu8sXraKQPSPLPOeEZQNgXYq1JP35yCFPC6r8xJZt26QDIVbb6uq6szkIpusgIo9EtSLTNZ3Ilnbqj0ddK9QYIfF_CFtfCOYzwuFXn28NyVtRt369sFTmRQlKhN1-wxTJ4KxbnHUUqm3u7ZcTEQPXH2DwxJDTnlDtHO1iTKTbfvfI/s5184/IMG_1032.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtxhmSAuLqMuYnLSTgu8sXraKQPSPLPOeEZQNgXYq1JP35yCFPC6r8xJZt26QDIVbb6uq6szkIpusgIo9EtSLTNZ3Ilnbqj0ddK9QYIfF_CFtfCOYzwuFXn28NyVtRt369sFTmRQlKhN1-wxTJ4KxbnHUUqm3u7ZcTEQPXH2DwxJDTnlDtHO1iTKTbfvfI/w400-h300/IMG_1032.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><u>The Green Dragon, Northlew</u></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEir8g-FCq7sTIjUu0i5s5rLP7l_4OG80ORRV1T4VIp1-RuNsddvR6hK1Cq_sR-vooXItOgvIRcxWrBJn_4l9smT7UWSAwEe9ImeH7J1NFkL8-mSkIFCLEiruHCOrTWilqodMRlYh1lvrDLofkFQX2F4AfhfDtGb8YvJr623UHD4L373khvT3IkEtZb1uNIy/s5184/IMG_1034.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEir8g-FCq7sTIjUu0i5s5rLP7l_4OG80ORRV1T4VIp1-RuNsddvR6hK1Cq_sR-vooXItOgvIRcxWrBJn_4l9smT7UWSAwEe9ImeH7J1NFkL8-mSkIFCLEiruHCOrTWilqodMRlYh1lvrDLofkFQX2F4AfhfDtGb8YvJr623UHD4L373khvT3IkEtZb1uNIy/w400-h300/IMG_1034.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><u>The New Inn, Sampford Courtenay</u></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_2bjzy8j0fLTJxcGYy2wEXsOEmjUHnxP3NZ10AMa2IhyExIeHe19HOX0kEQSNT9AUNWga_qeIP36PSTcidzB1KcS0TLG7Y9pn4mMUqpqk6JnwjhY_sPurzHjex0kQPrVuMGHmENvwAIeK8CSZceIg237ahJyBM6tTUtHhdSrOnJigTUe0AY428alL1YFt/s5184/IMG_1038.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_2bjzy8j0fLTJxcGYy2wEXsOEmjUHnxP3NZ10AMa2IhyExIeHe19HOX0kEQSNT9AUNWga_qeIP36PSTcidzB1KcS0TLG7Y9pn4mMUqpqk6JnwjhY_sPurzHjex0kQPrVuMGHmENvwAIeK8CSZceIg237ahJyBM6tTUtHhdSrOnJigTUe0AY428alL1YFt/w400-h300/IMG_1038.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><u>The Tally Ho, Hatherleigh</u></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEz0IP8kFaXpAweeindusb_g3s5GuWBI41EyniVKvun00969Af94n2NkvuUshJk_oWj1MXrKCHcsHacQCMG5O0f5iq7Afu4kcnHYHbXrIIjBZd_rpu0_Ket1veywVdK9zZHYZa1bqWTNQdGYH_A-mR7IJ-kg85yrPL8PmKIoHWS8YGRaM8mbACSxVHiCwF/s5184/IMG_1039.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEz0IP8kFaXpAweeindusb_g3s5GuWBI41EyniVKvun00969Af94n2NkvuUshJk_oWj1MXrKCHcsHacQCMG5O0f5iq7Afu4kcnHYHbXrIIjBZd_rpu0_Ket1veywVdK9zZHYZa1bqWTNQdGYH_A-mR7IJ-kg85yrPL8PmKIoHWS8YGRaM8mbACSxVHiCwF/w400-h300/IMG_1039.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><u>The George, Hatherleigh</u></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj47PH9jv22dQnvhC-i1ynyPTkSbSqlymAjhQIKSvMCnfIvG0NjU3egjlq2nYhzNI6wOccMPYNWAgqcqy2Wjb9Wo8WOga__T4WspvqQFDrHZKJ9_Z61uhXNhIdnPMJQfpbiALusiCU75CAjTCuMw61lEkJGpp4StlhChiR1LBVI7KJyq868R5LrtR4J7f4A/s5184/IMG_1045.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj47PH9jv22dQnvhC-i1ynyPTkSbSqlymAjhQIKSvMCnfIvG0NjU3egjlq2nYhzNI6wOccMPYNWAgqcqy2Wjb9Wo8WOga__T4WspvqQFDrHZKJ9_Z61uhXNhIdnPMJQfpbiALusiCU75CAjTCuMw61lEkJGpp4StlhChiR1LBVI7KJyq868R5LrtR4J7f4A/w400-h300/IMG_1045.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><u>The Half Moon, Sheepwash<o:p></o:p></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is hilly country, and not easy to navigate around. The
roads are narrow, complicated and confusing. It took me almost six hours,
starting from Exeter, to find all these pubs and then to get back to Exeter.
The coach drivers will surely earn their wages on Bandamonium Day!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Accommodation in the area is, to say the least, limited. And
as late July is peak season, it won’t be cheap either. Those who don’t want to
have to drive on the day will have either to book super early, or stay in the
same place as their “designated driver.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The event will reach its climax in the evening in “The
Square” in Hatherleigh. I confess I’m confused as to where it is. I found this
place:</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNuTsapOJuYzC6f_nyWGe5THr9-PNkf458nK5kQ0-RnX84LCllzHQi0eSUtjZsL0hWQgxGfUQKN8BdG9YltAqGppEhJnGFRTHCULVcTBbvTNkSjLVyn2ulZ14H1vw9pOd_t2FZsBRV5lvQVW7L6knR4NAriHIrQR8UEu0oONHNAafxoQ66rbcpXsqjiEMY/s5184/IMG_1041.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNuTsapOJuYzC6f_nyWGe5THr9-PNkf458nK5kQ0-RnX84LCllzHQi0eSUtjZsL0hWQgxGfUQKN8BdG9YltAqGppEhJnGFRTHCULVcTBbvTNkSjLVyn2ulZ14H1vw9pOd_t2FZsBRV5lvQVW7L6knR4NAriHIrQR8UEu0oONHNAafxoQ66rbcpXsqjiEMY/w400-h300/IMG_1041.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">which is called the Market, and is neither square nor
beautiful. And this one:</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgfhSTj-5tZ91cvVGsg89PiBpl4agwLluDh0YE3F-VGdVDjUSjhhOTV8YRoc6x0XFLAlDvMjMPM-4p2bBl5-lwOnlMQL-etKD0vLKDqJ3X0W0tKElKM8_wpPNLi7RBlb3NbdSwIt_LXlNuafdXxeDWuug-YQF6sJvk8xWuuXKMVvIE50Ct5rS-F0BqyEod/s5184/IMG_1042.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgfhSTj-5tZ91cvVGsg89PiBpl4agwLluDh0YE3F-VGdVDjUSjhhOTV8YRoc6x0XFLAlDvMjMPM-4p2bBl5-lwOnlMQL-etKD0vLKDqJ3X0W0tKElKM8_wpPNLi7RBlb3NbdSwIt_LXlNuafdXxeDWuug-YQF6sJvk8xWuuXKMVvIE50Ct5rS-F0BqyEod/w400-h300/IMG_1042.JPG" width="400" /></a></div></div><p class="MsoNormal">which is right next to the George. There is a public space
here. But fitting 20 bands, with more than 500 bandsmen, in here would be
impossible, at least to this former mathematician. Although this does look to
be where last year’s celebrations were held.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To add to the confusion, there is a new “Market Quarter” of
housing currently being built, which includes a new Market Square. This was
scheduled to be completed last year, but I couldn’t find evidence as to whether
or not it has actually happened.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ah well, I’m sure Tim the organizer – who used to play with
us 40 years ago – will inform us all in due course.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-79016759386181709442023-12-05T17:33:00.002+00:002023-12-05T17:33:40.810+00:00On the speech of King Charles III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Conference of the Parties, CoP28 in Dubai (where, instead of walking or cycling as he wants to force us to do, he flew by private plane)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj5UvXOmygkeMWH-KRysjfpu_iIZLlTHKkVdi0Bm7CbO1BSvY_pSFWuSvFNNk8YUd1iUTLvajedh7gulMVjXbiKU2tnqpfM2Z1MX5srt7Le_rFamj_fhFhp4ZDpFdLNy1gFKbMPLUUi2q7w8cJ1lB_75ST2RKmWsx80E2qiqD3DD_8eVQ81U6OQLVq65y/s1200/charlieiii.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1200" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj5UvXOmygkeMWH-KRysjfpu_iIZLlTHKkVdi0Bm7CbO1BSvY_pSFWuSvFNNk8YUd1iUTLvajedh7gulMVjXbiKU2tnqpfM2Z1MX5srt7Le_rFamj_fhFhp4ZDpFdLNy1gFKbMPLUUi2q7w8cJ1lB_75ST2RKmWsx80E2qiqD3DD_8eVQ81U6OQLVq65y/w400-h240/charlieiii.webp" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><h1>Three Charlies<o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Charlie One,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He got done.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Charlie Two,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Down the loo.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Charlie Turd,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Quite absurd.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><br /></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-30841162838542160592023-11-29T17:08:00.010+00:002023-11-29T17:29:12.937+00:00Another open letter to my MP - this time about Net Zero<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBI80-Q0SFev5K7aH57NpgsdmXHmgnRNmmt0fVp-p_0YT7tT8VnQqNXAQc4Zg2w166JTnXfQ5nGxBr9IZhr7Bc3OxNM7yw5YCmLRCDEcdcRexLdD2Wtl42qzr-ZG8YnPsHkQAAMOPNNS8X7-qzeE42iF7WBBP3sV7mOV3TWmk06e99Dcc4TWEWaCwXqbzg/s1024/notonetzero-it-1-cropped-1024x576-1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1024" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBI80-Q0SFev5K7aH57NpgsdmXHmgnRNmmt0fVp-p_0YT7tT8VnQqNXAQc4Zg2w166JTnXfQ5nGxBr9IZhr7Bc3OxNM7yw5YCmLRCDEcdcRexLdD2Wtl42qzr-ZG8YnPsHkQAAMOPNNS8X7-qzeE42iF7WBBP3sV7mOV3TWmk06e99Dcc4TWEWaCwXqbzg/s320/notonetzero-it-1-cropped-1024x576-1.png" width="320" /></a></div><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><address redacted></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing">Dear Mr Hunt,</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">You will no doubt be aware of the recent report “Clean
Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics,” written by investigative journalist Ben
Pile for the Together organization, of which I am a member. It documents how a
large, opaque network of funding, originating from four rich billionaires, has
operated to channel resources to many organizations that are active in favour
of “net zero” and other green policies. You will also probably be aware that,
when this report was published, both the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail
picked up on parts of its content, and in particular the funding by billionaire
Christopher Hohn of a climate activist network called “C40 Cities” [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>], which
is chaired by Sadiq Khan.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">You may not be aware that last week, Andrea Jenkyns MP
hosted a discussion on this report in parliament: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
I am taking the liberty of copying this to her, if only to thank her for her
kind words, and to suggest some further climate related areas in which she (and
you, and other MPs) ought to find some interest.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I have heard that, following on from this occasion, a
number of MPs are being asked to sign a pledge whose wording, if I have it
right, is as follows: “The public must have transparency into funding on Net
Zero policies, and a proper cost-benefit analysis of Net Zero.” Naturally, I am
fully in agreement with this idea, and would hope that you would be, too. But
while the first part of the pledge all but goes without saying, on the second
part I am able to supply some further information which should be of interest.
Not just to yourself and Andrea Jenkyns, but to all MPs who are concerned that
their constituents ought to be treated justly, fairly and honestly, and should
receive full value for the vast sums they pay to government.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I do apologize if you find what I have written below rather
long and a bit technical. But I feel it is important to document the back-story
of this issue in as much detail as is needed to enable people to appreciate fully
what is being done to them over this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>The Green Book.</b> As chancellor and thus its current
custodian, you will be aware of the green book [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>], a
set of procedures meant to guide cost versus benefit analyses carried out by
the UK government. You will also be aware of its history since its inception in
2003.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>The Stern Review.</b> You will be aware that green book
procedures were already in place in 2006, when Nicholas Stern issued his Stern
Review, an (apparent) attempt to provide a cost versus benefits analysis for
policy action or inaction on reducing CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. You may also be
aware that, as documented in Ben Pile’s report, Stern now chairs two institutes
at the London School of Economics, both active in climate policymaking, and funded
by Jeremy Grantham, another of the green alarmist billionaires identified in
the report.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>The social cost of carbon.</b> You may be aware that,
at the time, the green book procedures required cost-benefit analysis of
policies affecting CO<sub>2</sub> emissions to use the “social cost of carbon” (SCC)
approach. In the words of the government’s historical web page on valuing CO<sub>2</sub>
emissions [<a name="_Ref152151545"></a><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]: “The SCC matters because it
signals what society should, in theory, be willing to pay now to avoid the
future damage caused by incremental carbon emissions.” And in my view, this is the
right measure to use in assigning monetary value to these emissions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Stern did, indeed, use an SCC approach in this review. But
you may not be aware that, of the three tools (integrated assessment models,
IAMs) Stern had available to him, he chose the one which gave by far the most
pessimistic estimate of the social cost of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. You may
also not be aware that Stern made other assumptions such as a low discount rate,
that resulted in a grossly exaggerated estimate of the cost of not taking any policy
action.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>The climate change bill.</b> The 2008 UK climate change
bill did make a token attempt at a cost-benefit analysis. The numbers were, so
I understand, based on the Stern review. But not only were these numbers
dubious for the reasons outlined above, but they had a huge range of
uncertainty too. I myself actually downloaded and read the 200 or so pages of
supporting data and calculations. If I recall right, there was a factor of 7
uncertainty in the costs, and a factor of 12 uncertainty in the “benefits,” of
taking action to reduce CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in order to mitigate some
putative climate change.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">On 14<sup>th</sup> July 2008, I wrote a 9-page letter to
you, Mr Hunt, as my MP, giving you a synopsis of the facts on the matter, and
inviting you to inform yourself fully; and then, when you understood the facts,
to vote against the bill. Yet you failed even to acknowledge my letter, let
alone to respond to it! And, you, along with 400+ other MPs, voted for the
bill.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>The shadow price of carbon.</b> Between 2007 and 2009,
steps were taken to move away from the social cost approach. I will quote again
from the valuations page I referenced above. “Carbon valuation for policy
appraisal no longer uses the social cost of carbon.” And: “In December 2007,
the approach to carbon valuation adopted the use of the shadow price of carbon
(SPC) as the basis for incorporating carbon emissions in cost-benefit analysis
and impact assessments. However, it takes more account of uncertainty, and is based
on a stabilisation trajectory.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">This page [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]
links to the documentation on the change to using the shadow price of carbon.
It also links to reviews on that change by a number of economists. Some of
these are dated 2007, but others are dated 2009, indicating that they refer to a
further change in that year.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Paul Ekins’ 2007 review [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]
said: “The issue is how to arrive at such a price in a way that is both
defensible and supports the Government’s climate change policy.” Ekins goes on
to outline a plan “to seek to estimate the MAC [marginal abasement costs]
required to reduce carbon emissions to achieve the desired UK contribution to a
global goal of stabilising carbon concentrations in the atmosphere at a level
thought to avoid unacceptably dangerous climate change.” So, the climate change
policy required a pricing mechanism that wasn’t defensible? That’s a bit of a
revelation. As is the admission that some “global goal” was seen as more
important than the interests of the people of the supposedly democratic UK.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">The 2009 review by Paul Watkiss [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]
says: “We now have defined policy targets for the short- and long-term, which
were not set on the basis of the social cost of carbon (SCC), and thus there is
a high risk of under- or over-delivery of these targets if Government continues
to use a SCC value.” I read this as an admission that policy targets had been
set without considering cost-effectiveness from the point of view of the people
who would pay the costs. And here we are, 14 years later, and we <i>still</i>
don’t have a proper cost-benefit analysis on “net zero.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">As an aside, Paul Watkiss had been the chair of the group
that in 2003 produced a feasibility study for what in 2008 became the original London
Low Emissions Zone (LEZ).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Today, there seems to be no longer a link from [[4]] to the detail on the 2009 change. However,
the original page is still available, here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
The punch-line is as follows: “The old approach based on estimates of the
social cost of carbon should be replaced with a target-consistent approach,
based on estimates of the abatement costs that will need to be incurred to meet
specific emissions reduction targets. The change will have the effect of
helping to ensure that the policies the government develops are consistent with
the emissions reductions targets that the UK has adopted through carbon
budgets, and also at an EU and UN level.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">If I read that right, it means that the UK government had
abandoned any attempt or pretence at trying to work out how big the CO<sub>2</sub>
problem really was. Cynically paraphrased, their argument seems to have been:
“We know we can’t do a credible cost-benefit analysis that justifies any
political action on this. But we’re already committed to political action. So,
we’ll make up numbers to match the commitments, and hope that no-one notices.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">On that page, there is also a link to a review by Paul
Johnson [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
The following comment is most revealing: “The problem is, of course, that the
natural response of the economist to some of the arguments put forward here –
that the SCC may be inconsistent with targets and international agreements – is
that this just reveals the incoherence of the targets and agreements. I am not
in that camp, but the paper needs more explicitly to rebut that view.” And, a
little further down: “given a target, the consistent approach is to value
carbon in such a way as to ensure we hit the target.” Again, policy cart before
cost-benefit horse, no?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>The 2019 CCC report and “cost-benefit analysis.”</b> On to
the run-up to the Commons declaring a “climate emergency” on 1<sup>st</sup>
May, 2019, without even taking a vote. For this occasion, the CCC (Climate
Change Committee) had produced a report “Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to
stopping global warming” [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
All I could glean from this report is that they reckoned the cost of “net zero”
measures <i>might</i> be 1-2% of UK GDP in 2050. But as we know, government
projects always cost more and take longer.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">More interesting than what the report says, are the mugshots
and bios of eight CCC members at the beginning. One of the eight is an
economist called Paul Johnson.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Somebody high up must have decided that going ahead with
“net zero,” without having published any proper cost-benefit analysis at all,
was going to be a little risky. So, this report was produced: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
It purported to be a cost-benefit analysis for “net zero” CO<sub>2</sub>
emission policies. You can note that the chairman of the group that produced
this report, Paul Ekins, was the same economist who drove the 2009 decision to
move away from the use of the social cost of carbon. You can see in action the
MAC approach which replaced it, and you can marvel at how obscure and
counter-intuitive it seems. You can also marvel at the lack of monetary numbers
in the report for the estimated costs of a given level of “climate change!”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>Shadow price versus social cost.</b> In a 2022 report
by economics consultancy Cebr for Fair Fuel UK, accessible via [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>],
it was revealed that the number the UK government used to calculate the
benefits of reducing CO<sub>2</sub> emissions by a tonne (£255.40) – based on
the shadow price of carbon – was more than five times the sterling equivalent
of the US government’s published value of the “social cost of carbon” per tonne
(£48.54). The replacement of social cost by shadow price made a very big
difference to any costs or benefits calculated using it!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>Costs and feasibility of net zero.</b> All this does
not take into account the steeply rising costs of the “renewable” energy, which
net zero policies mandate. We have been repeatedly told by the media that
renewable energy is cheap. But that has never been completely true, and is
becoming less so by the day. Offshore wind “maximum strike” prices have recently
gone up by 66%: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn13" name="_ednref13" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
The corresponding prices for tidal, geothermal and solar power have also gone
up significantly. It is hard to imagine that these rises will not be passed on,
and sooner rather than later, to hard-hit consumers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">And that doesn’t take into account the huge re-configurations
of the electricity grid, that will be needed to support these new renewables.
Nor does it cover the need to provide conventional back-up energy, for the
times when the wind doesn’t blow, or the sun doesn’t shine; or both, as in a
cold, windless anticyclone in February. Nor does it cover such aspects as global
supply problems, for example of lithium for EV batteries; of likely non-delivery
of technologies required for net zero, such as cost-effective hydrogen
production; or of the level of safety of these new technologies, relative to conventional
ones.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">It looks very much to me as if “net zero” and related
projects have not been properly planned, or their consequences thought through.
I sense rising now a tide of very real concern, over the question: Can “net zero”
actually be achieved, in <i>any</i> timescale? And that is on top of the
question: Even if it was feasible, would it be worth doing? (My answer to that
is a strong No.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>Green Book update of 2020.</b> In 2020, there was an
update to the Green Book, described here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn14" name="_ednref14" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
It says at the outset: “As ultimate decision makers, ministers are not bound by
recommendations arising from green book appraisals.” That seems rather concerning to me. Why bother to do them, then?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Of its history, it says: “In March 2020, the Government
announced a review of the approach, to improve how the Green Book supports
strategic priorities such as its ‘levelling up’ agenda and the transition to
net zero greenhouse gas emissions.” Later, it says: “The 2020 review of the
Green Book concluded that it failed to support the Government’s objectives in
areas such as ‘levelling up’ the regions and reaching net zero. The review said
this was because the process relied too heavily on cost-benefit analysis, also
known as the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).” And there was “insufficient weight
given to whether the proposed project addressed strategic policy priorities.”
Further, under the new Green Book, “a project with a low BCR could go ahead if
it were the best option to achieve a particular objective.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">This seems to imply that policies that politicians deem to
be “strategic,” including “net zero,” are to be exempt from cost-benefit
analysis! No matter how damaging those policies will be to the people the
government is supposed to be serving. Let <i>that</i> sink in.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">And the timing of this update was very, very interesting.
In mid-February 2020, chancellor Sajid Javid resigned, refusing to bow to
pressure from prime minister Boris Johnson to change his advisors. Rishi Sunak
– now prime minister! – took over as chancellor. It is probably no coincidence
that the review of the Green Book began in March.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>“Clean Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics.”</b> To
justify the main conclusions of his report, Ben Pile cites the following. Large
grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to, among others, the United
Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), Imperial College London, at the
centre of controversy over both COVID and ULEZ, and the BBC and other media
that take the climate activist side. Funding of climate change campaigns by
billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Christopher Hohn. Involvement of C40 Cities and
UK 100 [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn15" name="_ednref15" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>],
“a network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net
Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal
target,” in both net zero and air quality campaigns. And funding of UK
university departments active in the climate change and air pollution arenas,
not only by the Gates foundation, but also by Jeremy Grantham.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I can thoroughly recommend a read of this most eye-opening
report. But for those without sufficient time to fully digest the original, I
have made my own summary, here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn16" name="_ednref16" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[16]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>The Conservative Environment Network.</b> One series of
most interesting grants from Christopher Hohn, via the “Clean Air Fund,” which
have totalled $160k over three years, is to the Conservative Environment
Network (CEN). This organization includes many MPs [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn17" name="_ednref17" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[17]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]:
indeed, half or perhaps even more of current Tory MPs, including yourself, Mr
Hunt. Other names on the list include:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->George Eustice, a former secretary of state for
the environment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->George Freeman, current under-secretary of state
for science, research and innovation. And custodian of the “Strategic
Priorities Fund,” which funds the government’s “Strategic Priorities Fund Clean
Air Programme.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Chris Grayling, a former secretary of state for transport.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Matt Hancock.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Mark Harper, current minister of state for transport.
Who claimed that he “did not have the power” to stop the recent ULEZ expansion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Robert Jenrick, who was involved in Michael
Gove’s meeting with Extinction Rebellion in April 2019.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Kwasi Kwarteng, former chancellor.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Alok Sharma, chair of the CoP26 meeting in
Glasgow, and keeper of two diesel SUVs at the time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">It is hard to avoid the thought that some of these at
least may have been influenced, in ways not in the best interests of those they
are supposed to serve, by activist ideas such as Hohn’s.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>The case against a climate crisis</b>. For Andrea Jenkyns’
benefit, I would like to close by giving a link to the following article, which
I wrote earlier in the year, and which was re-published at wattsupwiththat.com,
“the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change.” It is
here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_edn18" name="_ednref18" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[18]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
(Mr Hunt, I sent you this article back in April.) I will quote from my
conclusions: “Whatever alarmists may say, I for one don’t see any evidence for
a ‘climate crisis.’ Still less is there any hard evidence that emissions of CO<sub>2</sub>
from human civilization are causing any climate problems at all. Nor is it at
all certain that any amount of reduction in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions would
achieve any improvement in the climate.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In a nutshell, when you disregard the hype and look only
at hard evidence, and when you require a high standard of proof – as you would,
for example, if on the jury at a criminal trial – then there is no case for any
action at all to limit CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, or to implement any of the
other associated policies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>To conclude.</b> I hope that what I have had to say on
this occasion may have given you some pause, and may set you thinking about the
conduct, over these matters, of the UK government towards the people it is
supposed to serve. I do not think that the sorry tale I have related – with its
supporting links, many of which come from the government’s own web pages – gives
any reason to be complacent about the situation. You will no doubt be aware
that many people, even very many people, have become extremely unhappy about
the way that, in many policy areas, all the main political parties have essentially the same policies, all of
which are harmful to the people. That is not a situation that can long be
tenable in a democracy. Something has got to slip.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">If the case for “net zero” policies is fatally flawed, as
I and many other “ordinary” people strongly believe it is, then government
should be taking extremely prompt action to reverse these policies. For a large
group of MPs to pledge to get a proper, objective, unbiased cost-benefit
analysis done and published before any further policy action is taken on any of
these fronts, would be an encouraging start. If this does not happen, that would
increasingly call into question whether today’s politicians have any interest
in democracy, or in the people they are supposed to serve.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Yours sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Neil Lock</p><div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.c40.org/">https://www.c40.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUz4wHKviZ0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUz4wHKviZ0</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent/the-green-book-2020">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent/the-green-book-2020</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/carbon-valuation--2">https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/carbon-valuation--2</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shadow-price-of-carbon-economic-appraisal-in-the-uk">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shadow-price-of-carbon-economic-appraisal-in-the-uk</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243828/paul-ekins.pdf">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243828/paul-ekins.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243823/1_20090714193626_e____pwatkiss__1_.pdf">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243823/1_20090714193626_e____pwatkiss__1_.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn8">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carbon-valuation-in-uk-policy-appraisal-a-revised-approach">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carbon-valuation-in-uk-policy-appraisal-a-revised-approach</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn9">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c19e640f0b645ba3c6b31/1_20090714193549_e____pauljohnson.pdf">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c19e640f0b645ba3c6b31/1_20090714193549_e____pauljohnson.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn10">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Net-Zero-The-UKs-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming.pdf">https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Net-Zero-The-UKs-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn11">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Advisory-Group-on-Costs-and-Benefits-of-Net-Zero.pdf">https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Advisory-Group-on-Costs-and-Benefits-of-Net-Zero.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn12">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://fairfueluk.com/CEBR-2030-BAN/">https://fairfueluk.com/CEBR-2030-BAN/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn13">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref13" name="_edn13" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boost-for-offshore-wind-as-government-raises-maximum-prices-in-renewable-energy-auction">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boost-for-offshore-wind-as-government-raises-maximum-prices-in-renewable-energy-auction</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn14">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref14" name="_edn14" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/government-investment-programmes-the-green-book/">https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/government-investment-programmes-the-green-book/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn15">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref15" name="_edn15" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.uk100.org/">https://www.uk100.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn16">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref16" name="_edn16" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[16]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/11/19/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-a-summary/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/11/19/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-a-summary/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn17">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref17" name="_edn17" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[17]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>] <a href="https://www.cen.uk.com/our-caucus">https://www.cen.uk.com/our-caucus</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn18">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/jh2911.docx#_ednref18" name="_edn18" title=""></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><p>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[18]</span></span></span>] <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/</a> </p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-88610657970265730642023-11-19T15:32:00.003+00:002023-11-19T15:53:51.619+00:00Clean Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics: A Summary<p>Last week, I was sent a link [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span></span></a>]
to a report entitled “Clean Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics.” It was written
by investigative journalist Ben Pile for Together Declaration (of which I am a
member) and Climate Debate UK [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span></span></a>].
The title of the report is “Clean Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics.”</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">What Ben Pile has done is “follow the money” from four very
rich men, through various intermediaries, to a slew of green activist and
supporter organizations, that are promoting policies hostile to us ordinary
human beings. These policies are being carried out particularly in the areas of
climate change and “net zero,” and “clean air” and ULEZ. The report is, to put
it mildly, an interesting read.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">One finding of this report, the funding of C40 Cities [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>],
a climate and “clean air” activist network chaired by London Mayor Sadiq Khan, by
a UK billionaire named Christopher Hohn who also funds Extinction Rebellion,
was taken up by the Daily Telegraph: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>].
The Daily Mail also covered the same story: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Since then, the mainstream media seem to have been silent
about the report. This is not, perhaps, unsurprising. The message this report conveys
is not the kind that the establishment would want to reach ordinary people in
large numbers. At least it means that, since no-one has complained about any of
the facts in the report, we can go ahead and assume that everything in it is
true!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The report is 45 pages long. To someone like me, accustomed
to reading hundreds of pages at a time of turgid government reports, this is a
short document. But, in order to digest the import of this report more fully, I
thought I would paraphrase some of the things Ben Pile has found, and what he
has concluded. As well as adding a couple of tidbits I already knew from other
sources. By publishing this, I hope I will save a few people a few hours’ work!<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The main conclusions<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">The main conclusions of the report are presented on the
first page. Ben Pile puts these as:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Philanthropy has vastly exceeded any reasonable
definition of ‘charitable giving.’<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The green movement follows this movement of big
global political philanthropy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Air pollution policies such as ULEZ are proxy
battles of the climate war.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Philanthropy shapes academic research
priorities.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The public has been excluded from politics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">For the first four conclusions, he cites: Large grants
from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to, among others, the United
Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) and to Imperial College London, at the
centre of controversy over both COVID and ULEZ. Funding of climate change
campaigns by billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Christopher Hohn. The
involvement of C40 and UK 100 [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_edn6" name="_ednref6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>],
“a network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net
Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target,”
in both net zero and air quality campaigns. And the funding of UK university
departments active in the climate change and air pollution arenas, not only by
the Gates foundation, but also by rich climate crusader Jeremy Grantham.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">For the last, I will quote directly from the report. “Politicians’
own statements show that the green policy agenda represents a compact between
government, ‘civil society,’ academia and big business. Experts that depart
from the policy agenda are routinely excluded from the public debate by
research agendas, editorial policy and cancel culture, depriving the public of
debate about the costs and trade-offs of far-reaching policies. Green
organisations have worked to form a cross-party consensus at all levels of
government, pushing the public interest and democratic representation out of
politics.” These are serious claims. And to those of us, like me, who ignore
hype and simply look at the evidence, they are hard to disbelieve.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I will add here one personal comment. I find the use of
the word “philanthropy” to be over-generous. These supposed philanthropists
are using their wealth, not for the benefit of all members of the human
species, but to foster political agendas like net zero and ULEZ, which are not
only unjustified by honest science, but also hostile to the interests of
ordinary human beings. And, most of all, to the interests of older and poorer
people.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Some good points made<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ben Pile goes on to make some good general points about the
situation we find ourselves in.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Page 4: “Rather than opening discussions with local
populations, objections have been ignored on the basis of arguments and
evidence provided to them by lobbying and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)
and academic researchers, many of whom have been active in policy design,
implementation and campaigning.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Page 6: He shows, from historical data, “very reliable
evidence that claims about an ‘air pollution crisis’ are unfounded.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Page 17: “A longstanding and extremely cosy and undemocratic
relationship between CSOs and policymakers.” In which, “the public’s views on
the far-reaching policies that will be imposed on them are rarely a
consideration for technocrats, CSOs and politicians.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The specifics<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">But it is when, starting around page 10, he begins to
document some of the specific money flows, that Ben Pile shows his true skills
as an investigator.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Gates<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has made “substantial
grants to media organisations and CSOs, and to organisations acting under the
pretext of ‘countering misinformation’.” It has made large grants (£54m total)
to BBC Media Action, formerly the BBC World Service Trust. As well as to the BBC
as a whole, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Financial Times and others. Not
all of these recipients are objective or unbiased! (Understatement of the day).<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Bloomberg<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Michael Bloomberg, as well as being a former chair of C40,
has been very active in pushing “Environmental, Social and Governance” policies
in the USA. And he has been a big funder of the WHO. An agency of the UN, the
main driver of the green agenda. And one which, given its seeming desire to
eliminate air pollution regardless of the costs, and its desire to force its
own centralized views on health and pandemic strategy on to everyone in the
world, clearly does not have at heart the interests of us human beings.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Hohn<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_edn7" name="_ednref7" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>],
the main vehicle for Christopher Hohn’s apparent philanthropy, is not only of
note as a major funder of C40. It also used to employ Rishi Sunak, current
prime minister. And Shirley Rodrigues, Sadiq Khan’s deputy mayor of London, who
has tried to suppress, or to get changed the conclusions of, scientific
reports, used to work at a very senior level in CIFF.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, Ben Goldsmith, Tory candidate for Mayor of London
in the 2016 election, is a Trustee of CIFF. There was no choice at all at that
“election” for those opposed to green policies, since both main candidates were
rabid greens! (As were Boris Johnson, the previous Mayor, and Ken Livingstone,
his predecessor). Democracy? Not.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ben Pile also documents “pass-through” organizations, such
as the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and the Clean Air Fund (CAF). In both
cases, the largest single funder is Christopher Hohn.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The Conservative Environment Network<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">One series of most interesting grants from the Clean Air
Fund, totalling $160k over three years, is to the Conservative Environment
Network (CEN). This organization includes many MPs [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_edn8" name="_ednref8" style="mso-endnote-id: edn8;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>]:
indeed, half or perhaps even more of current Tory MPs. Names on the list
include:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->George Eustice, a former secretary of state for
the Environment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->George Freeman, current under-secretary of state
for Science, Research and Innovation. And custodian of the “Strategic
Priorities Fund,” which funds the government’s “Strategic Priorities Fund Clean
Air Programme.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Chris Grayling, a former secretary of state for
Transport.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Matt Hancock.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Mark Harper, current minister of state for
Transport. Who claimed that he “did not have the power” to stop the recent ULEZ
expansion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Jeremy Hunt, current Chancellor.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Robert Jenrick, who was involved in Michael
Gove’s meeting with Extinction Rebellion in April 2019.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Kwasi Kwarteng, former Chancellor.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Alok Sharma, chair of the CoP26 meeting in
Glasgow, and keeper of two diesel SUVs at the time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Grantham<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jeremy Grantham founded the Grantham Institute at Imperial
College, London, well known as a hotbed of climate activism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another part of Imperial, the Environmental Research Group
(ERG) [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_edn9" name="_ednref9" style="mso-endnote-id: edn9;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>],
while seemingly separated from the Grantham Institute, hosts several academics
who are, and have been for some years, involved with COMEAP (Committee on the
Medical Effects of Air Pollution), the government’s supposedly independent
advisors on air pollution and health. And its director and former COMEAP chair,
Frank Kelly, has been very active in the cause of ULEZ, even going so far as to
help Shirley Rodrigues doctor the narrative over a scientific paper.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another Grantham funded institute at the London School of
Economics is chaired by Nicholas Stern, author of the 2006 report that
attempted (and, objectively, failed) to justify UK action on climate change,
yet was still used to push forward the climate change bill.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>In conclusion<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ben Pile concludes his report by making the following
points:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->It is clear from our survey of philanthropic
foundations that very few of the very many CSOs active in climate change would
exist at all were it not for grants by a very small number of billionaires.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Air pollution campaigning in the UK represents
just a small part of that enterprise but is entirely dominated by the same
philanthropic foundations and CSOs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The sudden development of interest in air
pollution in the 2010s is better explained by the coordinated strategy of
global CSOs being driven by philanthropic organisations, than by a spontaneous
change in public opinion or in science.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I will repeat once more what I said near the beginning: The
message this report conveys is not the kind that the establishment would want
to reach ordinary people in large numbers.</p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]
<a href="https://togetherdeclaration.org/report/">https://togetherdeclaration.org/report/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]
<a href="https://climatedebate.co.uk/">https://climatedebate.co.uk/</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]
<a href="https://www.c40.org/">https://www.c40.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]
<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/xr-billionaire-funds-sadiq-khan-climate-network/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/xr-billionaire-funds-sadiq-khan-climate-network/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12742309/extinction-rebellion-billionaire-financier-donation-sadiq-khan-climate-network.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12742309/extinction-rebellion-billionaire-financier-donation-sadiq-khan-climate-network.html</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_ednref6" name="_edn6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]
<a href="https://www.uk100.org/">https://www.uk100.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_ednref7" name="_edn7" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]
<a href="https://ciff.org/">https://ciff.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn8" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_ednref8" name="_edn8" style="mso-endnote-id: edn8;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]
<a href="https://www.cen.uk.com/our-caucus">https://www.cen.uk.com/our-caucus</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn9" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/ulez/clean-air-dirty-money-filthy-politics-summary.docx#_ednref9" name="_edn9" style="mso-endnote-id: edn9;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>]
<a href="https://www.erg.ic.ac.uk/research/home/index.html">https://www.erg.ic.ac.uk/research/home/index.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-91879588364969224362023-10-12T11:01:00.003+01:002023-10-12T11:22:52.125+01:00COVID-19: The Post-Mortem (2)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_2I9s8X1CYWir2IzeqO4JCHdRf6lMgsDFEaDSGzJx3MSO5Qaa2dD3Ju1Z7o-fX9oDHD1GXAOHM5WxVr7g7YeRuf4Z2rsvtX0oOKil4MpFpwWnB_Q3TfhyZW2Y7ZEXkHMhNZH-8m6hknas61LYrDPmCf594Cb9EttR_pVHI1yextMqO1PIVO7ZnOA4Lzqk/s833/scataxmalsch.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="833" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_2I9s8X1CYWir2IzeqO4JCHdRf6lMgsDFEaDSGzJx3MSO5Qaa2dD3Ju1Z7o-fX9oDHD1GXAOHM5WxVr7g7YeRuf4Z2rsvtX0oOKil4MpFpwWnB_Q3TfhyZW2Y7ZEXkHMhNZH-8m6hknas61LYrDPmCf594Cb9EttR_pVHI1yextMqO1PIVO7ZnOA4Lzqk/w400-h221/scataxmalsch.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This is a follow-up
to my “COVID post-mortem” post of 27<sup>th</sup> September.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">I realized that, having
assessed average excess mortality against vaccine take-up and cumulative deaths
per case in each country, I could use a similar technique to assess average excess
mortality against the severity of different types of lockdown interventions
through the course of the epidemic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The sample of
countries was necessarily small, since only 35 out of 50 countries had reported
excess mortality figures within the 90 days prior to the last date covered by
the data I took.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Stringency<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In my “magic
spreadsheets,” I kept track of the Blavatnik School of Government “stringency”
measure, a percentage which gives a measure of how far a country was locked
down overall on a particular day. I also kept detailed track of how far each
country was locked down each day, under each of nine headings: schools,
workplaces, events, gatherings, public transport, stay at home, travel
restrictions, international travel restrictions and face coverings.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Measures of stringency<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">When I came to do
this assessment, I found that I could not use the official stringency measure
for comparison, because the detailed data behind it, on which I based my own
metrics, has not been reported since late 2022. Fortunately, I had already
worked out my own alternative measures, both derived from the stringency.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">What I call “average
lockdown” was calculated in the same way as the official stringency, but using the
detailed data, excluding “public information” status and including face
covering restrictions instead.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">I had also defined a
“harshness” metric, which was intended to give an idea of how subjectively
unpleasant a given level of lockdown was. This included only mandatory
measures, and gave more weight to intrusive and inflexible measures than the
official stringency calculation did.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Both of these
averaged the values day-by-day up to the cut-off date, at which I had decided that
COVID was no longer a serious threat, so stopped collecting the Blavatnik data.
That date was 17<sup>th</sup> August 2022.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Findings not broken down by lockdown
type<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">What I found was
that, for both my metrics, excess mortality since the start of the pandemic
tended to increase as the average severity of the interventions (from the start
of the epidemic up to the cut-off date) went up. But the slope of the trend
line for the harshness metric was steeper than that for the lockdown metric.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Over the full ranges
of both metrics, the trend line for the harshness metric ran from about 7% to
11% excess mortality, whereas that for the lockdown metric went only from about
8% to 10.5%. This suggests that the psychological effects of mandatory, harsh
lockdowns may have been responsible for a significant proportion of the excess
deaths seen.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjewHuyZuRsgTe6E0bNTw31onF3i8s3et6UPA6_qkuNqkKr-jTEbapfBPZQjmQ06PmDgf3sG624ZOR3z2Y9D4RvSkHnzmPB8ZkiMsIJQE0tjvmdpUNEtkUg3N8unZ0amsdiMjYOG9KCLOuz51LMEwHf2aU09-VFdVS2uEtUipj00xle0lm8K-Aqnp9XTIMA/s833/scataxmal.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="833" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjewHuyZuRsgTe6E0bNTw31onF3i8s3et6UPA6_qkuNqkKr-jTEbapfBPZQjmQ06PmDgf3sG624ZOR3z2Y9D4RvSkHnzmPB8ZkiMsIJQE0tjvmdpUNEtkUg3N8unZ0amsdiMjYOG9KCLOuz51LMEwHf2aU09-VFdVS2uEtUipj00xle0lm8K-Aqnp9XTIMA/w400-h221/scataxmal.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgioyzeAGftQ2j-AB1hYgBPJqDKS0wG2PQNgg3BuyOLHYROY3c0BNuZNJdYVY3Tr3Vz8W7evhLMfwRU_fmUwnxfQh0yzkcdAuodl0zY4uUCf9TwIpBwu7UT5r2lO5xN6S-cg35g_Igg2xsFSVKoA4bZyNnfKel3LEU7TVm-S4ZFfxhcfdsrO87cftQ7VetZ/s833/scataxmalh.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="833" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgioyzeAGftQ2j-AB1hYgBPJqDKS0wG2PQNgg3BuyOLHYROY3c0BNuZNJdYVY3Tr3Vz8W7evhLMfwRU_fmUwnxfQh0yzkcdAuodl0zY4uUCf9TwIpBwu7UT5r2lO5xN6S-cg35g_Igg2xsFSVKoA4bZyNnfKel3LEU7TVm-S4ZFfxhcfdsrO87cftQ7VetZ/w400-h221/scataxmalh.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_5" o:spid="_x0000_i1027" style="height: 258.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_7" o:spid="_x0000_i1026" style="height: 258.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Findings broken down by lockdown type<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Rather than show all
the individual graphs, I will give the slopes of the trend lines for the
various different types of lockdown interventions, and for the two metrics graphed
above, in the form of a table.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><u><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Lockdown
type<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><u><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Slope<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Schools<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">+0.2189<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Face Coverings<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">+0.1550<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Average Harshness<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">+0.1130<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Gatherings<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">+0.0848<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Workplaces<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">+0.0830<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 6;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Events<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">+0.0827<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 7;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Average
Lockdown<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">+0.0629<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 8;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Travel
Restrictions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">+0.0587<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 9;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Stay at Home<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">+0.0427<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 10;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Public
Transport<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">-0.0411<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 11; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">International
Travel Restrictions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid windowtext; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">-0.2150<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><br />Clearly, comparing count<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">ries across Europe, by far the most destructive type of lockdown in its
effect on excess mortality has been locking down schools. It’s understandable
why this would have had adverse psychological effects on both parents and
children; and maybe other family members as well. It was also, according to my
researches earlier in the epidemic, the least effective of all the types of
lockdowns at controlling the spread of the virus. Hardly surprising, since
children were not in general at great risk from COVID-19. The second most
destructive type of lockdown has been face-mask mandates; an imposition which
was at the same time annoying, demeaning and, on this evidence, worse than
ineffective at saving lives.<o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Lockdowns on
gatherings, workplaces and events are all very comparable in the size of their
effects on excess mortality. All three of these types of lockdowns seriously detract
from the quality of life by restricting people’s social contacts, or even
taking them away altogether. Workplace closures have also a very negative
economic impact, most of all on small businesses.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Travel restrictions
and stay at home mandates have had a similar, but smaller, effect to lockdowns
on gatherings, workplaces and events. This may be because they were not
generally used until less intrusive means had already been tried without success.
But the trend still suggests that they have increased excess mortality rather
than decreasing it.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">The only two of
these interventions which appear, on this evidence, actually to have saved any
lives since the epidemic began are public transport closures and international
travel restrictions. As I worked out some time ago, they also seem to have been
the two most effective among the measures tried, in terms of controlling the
spread of the virus.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">This seems to me to
be simple common sense, in both cases. After all, the safest way to get around in
an epidemic of an airborne infectious disease is in your own car, without
passengers. For those who don’t have their own cars, a taxi is the next best option.
Moreover, screening or more stringent measures at borders can protect a country
– for a time – from large-scale incursions of the virus.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">To give an idea of
the magnitudes involved, the graph for school lockdowns is at the head of the
article. Across the range of average lockdowns used in Europe, excess mortality
roughly doubles, from about 6.5% to about 13.5%, from the lowest to the highest
locked down. Very significant! At the other end of the scale, here is the graph
for international travel restrictions:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW0B1dY7dWTIiNJ81A6d-CSQlaROGdDUqF6ymBFhmT-nAniC4_NOMpTQq_TLhch4CBR3emABEN40vlfgxeXa5Q3rVmrmpjPvORNfUUO-x8xhS6Hp_mXtvsgodhw_3g9Hernefhnpoyp4hbtjKlVEQC0CUbcDzOSBnzXL08iRiIOMTaQe_XlqSPpPYDI6kq/s833/scataxmalint.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="833" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW0B1dY7dWTIiNJ81A6d-CSQlaROGdDUqF6ymBFhmT-nAniC4_NOMpTQq_TLhch4CBR3emABEN40vlfgxeXa5Q3rVmrmpjPvORNfUUO-x8xhS6Hp_mXtvsgodhw_3g9Hernefhnpoyp4hbtjKlVEQC0CUbcDzOSBnzXL08iRiIOMTaQe_XlqSPpPYDI6kq/w400-h221/scataxmalint.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Here, the trend is
even more spectacular, falling from 15% to only just over 5% excess mortality
from the lightest international lock-down to the harshest.</p>
<h2><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">To sum up<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The technique I have
used to assess average excess mortalities in Europe against average lockdown
levels of different types is, of course, rudimentary. And the sample size is
small, with only 35 countries reporting up-to-date excess mortality figures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nevertheless, the
trends in my scatterplots do suggest that average excess mortality since the
beginning of the epidemic may well have been made worse by many types of lockdown
interventions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">School lockdowns have
been the worst, with excess mortality roughly doubling from one end of the
lockdown scale to the other. Face mask mandates are second. Restrictions on
gatherings, workplaces and events have had a lesser effect. Travel restrictions
and stay-at-home mandates have had less effect still. But all these correlations
between higher lockdown levels and higher excess mortalities are still
positive. Of all the types of lockdowns, only public transport closures and
restrictions at national borders show any evidence of having saved lives since
the epidemic began.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore, when the
different degrees and types of lockdowns are weighted in such a way that
mandatory measures and subjectively harsher lockdowns have more weight, the
positive trend between average excess mortality and average lockdown severity
increases. This suggests that the psychological effects of lockdowns may be at
least a contributor to the recent surges in excess mortality in many European
countries, including the UK.</p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-46390413627974483832023-09-27T14:17:00.005+01:002023-09-27T17:35:03.591+01:00COVID-19: The Post-Mortem<p>Dr John Campbell,
among others, has recently drawn attention to the large numbers of excess
deaths (compared with the same time of year in pre-pandemic years), which have
been happening in the UK, and in other European countries, since the beginning
of 2021.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The data junkie in
me led me to give my “magic spreadsheets,” which I have used to analyze the
COVID pandemic over the last three years and more, one last run-out. And to try
to deliver a post-mortem report on the pandemic in Europe, with particular
reference to excess mortality, and to vaccinations, side-effects of which some
see as a possible reason for the excess deaths.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">New omicron variants
and media scares about them notwithstanding, the three-word summary of where
COVID is today is: “It’s dead, Jim.” Of the 50 reporting European countries,
only Russia and Czechia are reporting any significant number of either daily
new cases or daily COVID deaths. (By significant, I mean at least 1 new case,
or 0.0025 deaths, per million population per day).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;">Excess Mortality<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">So, let’s look at some graphs of the
excess mortality figures (from all causes), which have triggered the recent
attention. The data came from Our World in Data’s COVID data feed, and ran up
to 21<sup>st</sup> September. I divided the 50 countries into four groups, and
plotted each group.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ65q5qJK-kY_yF8t2sesugnS7rigWvHzrGFT_WhvRHjo0gmlCFU8knCUSAp9wap7Rq9KR2xLNLuLYehfVRzcQnMf9EwGY2QEQbgN7Kh_VZAVDxg_xfDO7QHpRcsAm2QXqID4fVUgV4CTHEdTSlU3Wm0dTyBHKQ53oRARX9UN23V-Cc5_KZfBH5ntWVBP6/s771/spagxm.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="771" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ65q5qJK-kY_yF8t2sesugnS7rigWvHzrGFT_WhvRHjo0gmlCFU8knCUSAp9wap7Rq9KR2xLNLuLYehfVRzcQnMf9EwGY2QEQbgN7Kh_VZAVDxg_xfDO7QHpRcsAm2QXqID4fVUgV4CTHEdTSlU3Wm0dTyBHKQ53oRARX9UN23V-Cc5_KZfBH5ntWVBP6/w400-h279/spagxm.png" width="400" /></a></div><p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;">The UK has been
among the countries in the geographical core of Western Europe with the most
consistently high excess mortality figures since the middle of 2021. But it
isn’t the only one to be high; and even now, there are still more countries
generally above the zero line than generally below it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDfMH8eIIele2RxCJDbHS-9mAfd3iHpgH-l6jnrZhyDXeGNLnbx9rhKaAUxqViSV1C4BhH8QsPM2e-u6oWqupwnXe7Si_UAMFGa_emfsLu-yVQJGSqviU9UtHURx4xqGStwbGd8srYEMA2xqKEVSveFHWDyzScAKhyzZv5LwP46i7TpbIWae91r-kAWGJM/s771/spagxm-eeurn.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="771" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDfMH8eIIele2RxCJDbHS-9mAfd3iHpgH-l6jnrZhyDXeGNLnbx9rhKaAUxqViSV1C4BhH8QsPM2e-u6oWqupwnXe7Si_UAMFGa_emfsLu-yVQJGSqviU9UtHURx4xqGStwbGd8srYEMA2xqKEVSveFHWDyzScAKhyzZv5LwP46i7TpbIWae91r-kAWGJM/w400-h279/spagxm-eeurn.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_2" o:spid="_x0000_i1038" style="height: 322.2pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 462.6pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;">That’s a similar
picture to further west. If anything, a bit worse, at least until very
recently.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcUlN68XlNrSzRPlA4Vxv2MZ9s3ESHOXUFQy3gTZQIe8_4YIIrNo7O8jAECVkm746oEPpCfQO_LyraI5yu2uKwUzasMABQMVsPJ6PpTVG5xUrDNLKsX-Jwc0aDw7R2_3fLwo_HQpPzjdWO41MxYnjsW3ReQN0H2KcQNijMXEoi49mlUnhGxlAOzkJ4uznT/s771/spagxm-eeurs.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="771" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcUlN68XlNrSzRPlA4Vxv2MZ9s3ESHOXUFQy3gTZQIe8_4YIIrNo7O8jAECVkm746oEPpCfQO_LyraI5yu2uKwUzasMABQMVsPJ6PpTVG5xUrDNLKsX-Jwc0aDw7R2_3fLwo_HQpPzjdWO41MxYnjsW3ReQN0H2KcQNijMXEoi49mlUnhGxlAOzkJ4uznT/w400-h279/spagxm-eeurs.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_3" o:spid="_x0000_i1037" style="height: 322.2pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 462.6pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;">These countries
got hit really hard by several waves of COVID in the first two years of the
epidemic, so perhaps it isn’t surprising that things have been quieter recently
on the excess mortality front.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvKKwSd42gqwhzuLyXjF-3t6DuuBOnHyG0SuhwxPTJ1UD_A1-JGROLk7XWF_mAVnapn9v3McAvAuQnaikcTyGtuGbhytc5yJAJvRGDxQpSyqjHMLkG5vgZ0zoHH8EO24aBhWN22a_lp7CuRqCnZcr9iu0PYGOo7X-4hoEDaQ2xm1PICATtXOw7zWr7VItG/s771/spagxm-weurr.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="771" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvKKwSd42gqwhzuLyXjF-3t6DuuBOnHyG0SuhwxPTJ1UD_A1-JGROLk7XWF_mAVnapn9v3McAvAuQnaikcTyGtuGbhytc5yJAJvRGDxQpSyqjHMLkG5vgZ0zoHH8EO24aBhWN22a_lp7CuRqCnZcr9iu0PYGOo7X-4hoEDaQ2xm1PICATtXOw7zWr7VItG/w400-h279/spagxm-weurr.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_4" o:spid="_x0000_i1036" style="height: 322.2pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 462.6pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image004.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;">These are mostly
small countries, which explains the variability of individual lines. But the
graph still gives a general impression of above-zero excess mortality,
persisting for a long period.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;">I assembled all
these into a “league table” of average excess mortality since the day I counted
as the start of the pandemic (24<sup>th</sup> January 2020). The averaging was
done simply by averaging all the individual excess mortality figures given by
each country, which should give a reasonably accurate picture given that most
countries report weekly; though some report monthly, and some less often still.
And I chose to exclude any countries which had not reported an excess mortality
figure in the last 90 days prior to the cut-off date (they appear at the top of
the histogram).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYgqwCfcwMUaECvIgiu3dgayBpv-9pjJsNOo98uaVBcJqG2-DdBlWdZDu72uFCguL0iT-ik8ANRwzAUCvtZRIZjLehbX0iUN7UR2t2zyKoAkYcHtzq8u1m6pgDWs_C6mg6F5kAZcmxn0w1q0hIUOfJFHg4E7lHPpZOJWT4SvSpMjfAxrFj-CtlC2sGMvCA/s828/histaxm.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="828" data-original-width="768" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYgqwCfcwMUaECvIgiu3dgayBpv-9pjJsNOo98uaVBcJqG2-DdBlWdZDu72uFCguL0iT-ik8ANRwzAUCvtZRIZjLehbX0iUN7UR2t2zyKoAkYcHtzq8u1m6pgDWs_C6mg6F5kAZcmxn0w1q0hIUOfJFHg4E7lHPpZOJWT4SvSpMjfAxrFj-CtlC2sGMvCA/w371-h400/histaxm.png" width="371" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_5" o:spid="_x0000_i1035" style="height: 496.8pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 460.8pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image005.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;">The Nordic
countries are, notably, concentrated towards the bottom of the list. Whether
due to cold temperatures, low population densities, a greater trust between the
people and governments, or some other cause, I cannot tell.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;">The UK is in 13<sup>th</sup>
place among 35 reporting excess mortality. Among Western European countries,
only Italy is worse.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;">Luxembourg,
Denmark, France and Germany have also done, relatively speaking, well. Compared
to all its neighbours, the UK has performed atrociously.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;">COVID cases and deaths<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">I created a “league table” of COVID cases
per million throughout the epidemic. Cases per million is not by any means a
perfect metric, because it does rather depend on the amount of testing, and on
how well the cases are counted. Nevertheless, here it is.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbPyvNTbVjnJGXV764PlOQaOiEeCKRQHYYtLHO7WuaEsUfELt75jiiLsRfy4ntBwlThx-5sQOL3FyaX5Fwobq4HIraN3h7JoSAUEFwFVbyddjlSIfzGDw6VHemH47o7R8clZWSsTSBahxtZjM1T-xBXiCQg0fvCEGRxq-HxEdgQJxn2Oq91dolFpanmKwu/s826/histcpm.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="826" data-original-width="768" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbPyvNTbVjnJGXV764PlOQaOiEeCKRQHYYtLHO7WuaEsUfELt75jiiLsRfy4ntBwlThx-5sQOL3FyaX5Fwobq4HIraN3h7JoSAUEFwFVbyddjlSIfzGDw6VHemH47o7R8clZWSsTSBahxtZjM1T-xBXiCQg0fvCEGRxq-HxEdgQJxn2Oq91dolFpanmKwu/w373-h400/histcpm.png" width="373" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_9" o:spid="_x0000_i1034" style="height: 495.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 460.8pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image006.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">Notice that those near the top of the
list tend to be mainly smaller countries. The UK, despite having used more
tests per head than most other countries, comes 28<sup>th</sup> out of 50.
Suggesting that the counting wasn’t all that good.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">Here’s a corresponding “league table” of
COVID deaths per million throughout the epidemic, for the same countries.
Deaths per million, I think, will tend to be a less accurate metric in many
countries than excess deaths, because there is a judgement involved on what
constitutes a COVID death, the basis for which may vary from country to
country.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKwTUW-GgrYZ_2bNwFdkaPo5KToQKhmU3HF16PoPiNB5kcY5kVn0VVT1X1BSmoRKSqQAsq6S-qlLa3fh3tNe-A3NlXceWXkgdos1ocGZ4NiM3GjC_7TxezaQAeOWQPbI9ffDjt_ORH6jBWRvyGxxke4zIfANH3e3dolBtuU_wjvOpVUA1-KOl1lQdt8NBP/s827/histdpm.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="827" data-original-width="768" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKwTUW-GgrYZ_2bNwFdkaPo5KToQKhmU3HF16PoPiNB5kcY5kVn0VVT1X1BSmoRKSqQAsq6S-qlLa3fh3tNe-A3NlXceWXkgdos1ocGZ4NiM3GjC_7TxezaQAeOWQPbI9ffDjt_ORH6jBWRvyGxxke4zIfANH3e3dolBtuU_wjvOpVUA1-KOl1lQdt8NBP/w371-h400/histdpm.png" width="371" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_6" o:spid="_x0000_i1033" style="height: 496.2pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 460.8pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image007.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">The UK is 17<sup>th</sup> out of 50 –
again, a poor performance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">As you might expect, many of the same
countries that counted many COVID deaths have also had high excess mortalities.
But not all. Russia, for example, is second highest in excess mortality, but
only 22<sup>nd</sup> out of 50 in COVID deaths. And Hungary, third from the top
in deaths per million, is in the bottom half of those reporting excess
mortality.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">One metric of the general quality of
health care systems, which I have found useful, is cumulative deaths per case.
A high score here shows either a failure to count cases accurately, or a
failure to treat those cases properly, or both.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2RiSom_I-H4XUZFNIn754VJWaeNgYSVN00D8Z_Cb3fgc5Hi8h1qbhzJozM0Zt2JlUvY6-_ssk1ygzugvWDrlFyxaBgoEcrYIEOOiBBRJoxPbTJvxQGJBkB3vkzaJlbrjXyGQzxLbWdQ_vsl9DKb-NdtAHImFWndYj-CccIfK5LtKKbkfGEMvEJAATAtYI/s827/histcdpc.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="827" data-original-width="768" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2RiSom_I-H4XUZFNIn754VJWaeNgYSVN00D8Z_Cb3fgc5Hi8h1qbhzJozM0Zt2JlUvY6-_ssk1ygzugvWDrlFyxaBgoEcrYIEOOiBBRJoxPbTJvxQGJBkB3vkzaJlbrjXyGQzxLbWdQ_vsl9DKb-NdtAHImFWndYj-CccIfK5LtKKbkfGEMvEJAATAtYI/w371-h400/histcdpc.png" width="371" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_7" o:spid="_x0000_i1032" style="height: 496.2pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 460.8pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image008.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="margin-left: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US">Once again,
the UK is near the wrong end of the table, at 15<sup>th</sup> out of 50. Even
Italy is some way below. We all know the NHS is a failing, if not already
failed, system; and it shows on this metric.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span lang="EN-US">Vaccinations<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">Here is the league table of percentage of
the population fully vaccinated. (The Swiss seem to have withdrawn their
previously published figures, perhaps because “fully vaccinated” is not as
precise a concept as they might like. Liechtenstein and the Vatican have never
published this figure).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0avOoODeswZlauIxS54ugixpaR4NsdtpLN-VdhkoA0Y43cOxfeQO10i_cub87RrPyLHCD_gBPYbHd_VrQYfp_zxddTvpQMgUlawM6_sxmwtxWt3sNU9hBw-iBnnPlHtalXQDmFqsBDoz7akw6szfvSLQHFbjt0ACBtH_9B9VsMtHkrQ5iHWT7p0FSzTqu/s826/histpfvph.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="826" data-original-width="768" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0avOoODeswZlauIxS54ugixpaR4NsdtpLN-VdhkoA0Y43cOxfeQO10i_cub87RrPyLHCD_gBPYbHd_VrQYfp_zxddTvpQMgUlawM6_sxmwtxWt3sNU9hBw-iBnnPlHtalXQDmFqsBDoz7akw6szfvSLQHFbjt0ACBtH_9B9VsMtHkrQ5iHWT7p0FSzTqu/w373-h400/histpfvph.png" width="373" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_16" o:spid="_x0000_i1031" style="height: 495.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 460.8pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image009.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">The strange number for Gibraltar is,
perhaps, explained by their choosing to vaccinate many who live in Spain, but
cross the border to work in Gibraltar. Of the others, it looks as if the
Catholic countries like to vaccinate as many as they can, while the
majority-Protestant countries (except Denmark) tend to be a bit more relaxed.
Towards the bottom of the list, lack of resources may also be a factor in low
vaccination rates.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span lang="EN-US">Scatterplots<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">OK, now it’s time to put together a
scatterplot or six, and see if we can discern any trends. One useful thing to
plot against is the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI). Wikipedia describes
this as “a statistical composite index of life expectancy, education (mean
years of schooling completed and expected years of schooling upon entering the
education system), and per capita income indicators, which is used to rank
countries into four tiers of human development.” Almost all the countries
listed here are currently in the “very high” tier (above 80%).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">The HDI data I captured refers to 2019,
but countries do move up or down. (The UK, for example, dropped three places
from 15<sup>th</sup> to 18<sup>th</sup> in the world in 2021).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">First, here’s average excess mortality
against UN HDI:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOdCJL5myz0dhBZ4llqSxN-L64i4FkSv_QbOh5VrVyQMCLQYFLAK-FTNTq6CRK3wF3qAK31j2j4nl7nwsRV6MjYncFd9oiqSyWDXNZCOzjnQgLKDpbo3uFT8JeM1GtlmUY_7c5CSQUFEkvx2S8omm9_GNjmuRtnr-zErmnMbsyT1jPnmDILTrqFcSxAWDg/s833/scataxmunhdi.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="833" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOdCJL5myz0dhBZ4llqSxN-L64i4FkSv_QbOh5VrVyQMCLQYFLAK-FTNTq6CRK3wF3qAK31j2j4nl7nwsRV6MjYncFd9oiqSyWDXNZCOzjnQgLKDpbo3uFT8JeM1GtlmUY_7c5CSQUFEkvx2S8omm9_GNjmuRtnr-zErmnMbsyT1jPnmDILTrqFcSxAWDg/w400-h221/scataxmunhdi.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_10" o:spid="_x0000_i1030" style="height: 258.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image010.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">As you might expect, the higher the level
of development, the lower the average excess mortality. Countries around the
80% mark tend to have about three times as many excess deaths as those around
the 95% mark.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">And here’s the corresponding plot of
COVID deaths per million against HDI:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvbmxQpXCO8ErH5yo72SguWvRXdpoHpMlCbEBkjubDhbPEgNnmTP3WJvmej_KhRek8HGaqi4JTb6rJKx1E0j3XnJa9fIw7KLTmT_Q60PSEBzfiqwUSds6NGmj3jcTOHeKE3CnGLcSqkYBphEk_y7OynDMpkGgrX5GqoUAybjZwKxd8z4Iya9Xx-POYuHqP/s832/scatdpmunhdi.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="832" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvbmxQpXCO8ErH5yo72SguWvRXdpoHpMlCbEBkjubDhbPEgNnmTP3WJvmej_KhRek8HGaqi4JTb6rJKx1E0j3XnJa9fIw7KLTmT_Q60PSEBzfiqwUSds6NGmj3jcTOHeKE3CnGLcSqkYBphEk_y7OynDMpkGgrX5GqoUAybjZwKxd8z4Iya9Xx-POYuHqP/w400-h221/scatdpmunhdi.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_11" o:spid="_x0000_i1029" style="height: 258.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image011.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">The trend here has the same sign as that
for the excess mortality, but is less steep. As the countries move from 95% HDI
down to 80%, the deaths per million go up by a factor of about 1.8.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">Lastly, the percentages fully vaccinated
versus the HDI:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD0k6M4GZqvkXcDSWM5ktvM8fzTy0BH3Z01hFsvJYK34dMShZUa7O-V0TXNiZ4EUELV0kHCWDQ3mxkaO0Sv12wj9dqTQSokx05SmyQ-QFJTkr6WUZ91iNCPvJftHCC0uICshPaqDrvSHxa1rGJH4lm18ESm3WEEAwpb7Jx22PlancbWuqFymlC0c-Y3TbS/s833/scatpfvphunhdi.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="833" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD0k6M4GZqvkXcDSWM5ktvM8fzTy0BH3Z01hFsvJYK34dMShZUa7O-V0TXNiZ4EUELV0kHCWDQ3mxkaO0Sv12wj9dqTQSokx05SmyQ-QFJTkr6WUZ91iNCPvJftHCC0uICshPaqDrvSHxa1rGJH4lm18ESm3WEEAwpb7Jx22PlancbWuqFymlC0c-Y3TbS/w400-h221/scatpfvphunhdi.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_17" o:spid="_x0000_i1028" style="height: 258.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image012.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">The higher the HDI, the higher the
vaccination level – as you might have expected.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">Next, let’s have a look at the efficacy
of the vaccines, in terms of controlling cases per million:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD2hNOdKTfq8wZhEXGPP68ZgaRBghaL7xlzUsbhdYum8TqoV4i7TCLB9doOFYxQt6kza3A5j3LZKbenZ44P8LVNKbcucgvDiGWcSfPoYY9BUaL4oQ2EdI3qa8WswDz0AEopItEsKI0PaxIq2Vn8ku7FJS5FCNVm3KoT7BpcK3PC6_vu-agWCQ2-wqDkQyB/s833/scatcpmpfvph.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="833" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD2hNOdKTfq8wZhEXGPP68ZgaRBghaL7xlzUsbhdYum8TqoV4i7TCLB9doOFYxQt6kza3A5j3LZKbenZ44P8LVNKbcucgvDiGWcSfPoYY9BUaL4oQ2EdI3qa8WswDz0AEopItEsKI0PaxIq2Vn8ku7FJS5FCNVm3KoT7BpcK3PC6_vu-agWCQ2-wqDkQyB/w400-h221/scatcpmpfvph.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_18" o:spid="_x0000_i1027" style="height: 258.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image013.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">Hmmm… The story we were originally fed,
that the vaccines would prevent transmission of the COVID virus, has to have
been a lie. There might, I suppose, be some effect of people being more willing
to take the vaccine if the statistics in their country are bad, than if they
are relatively good. But that vertically spread cluster of countries between 40%
and 80% fully vaccinated suggests to me that the amount of testing, and the
differences in case assignment rates to COVID, in different countries far
outweigh any effects the vaccines might have had in controlling cases.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">Next, COVID deaths per million versus
percentage fully vaccinated:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEEs2eRjPkFUl_zA5Zpfjd3eRVjnZBMEhSHdcadROYtvuGOLjLZNPvOMc9ayUBo0oBgSFvrmdTPb7KJzYV_HcuA8lj_hqmYG7zuPZuiF15mgBhOUR_fcjaRIq3sDZx9anFgOgHUBCMSgMDVZ_1NIqbYgO3965SE8gVYlMqPVn4j0Z9_1056wbfT_VjPYVM/s835/scatdpmpfvph.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="835" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEEs2eRjPkFUl_zA5Zpfjd3eRVjnZBMEhSHdcadROYtvuGOLjLZNPvOMc9ayUBo0oBgSFvrmdTPb7KJzYV_HcuA8lj_hqmYG7zuPZuiF15mgBhOUR_fcjaRIq3sDZx9anFgOgHUBCMSgMDVZ_1NIqbYgO3965SE8gVYlMqPVn4j0Z9_1056wbfT_VjPYVM/w400-h223/scatdpmpfvph.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_19" o:spid="_x0000_i1026" style="height: 259.8pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image014.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">There is a negative trend here, but it
isn’t as big as I would have expected if the vaccines were doing the job they
were claimed to. Moving the percentage fully vaccinated from 40% to 80% reduces
the number of deaths assigned to COVID by around a third.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">And last, but not least, average excess
mortality against vaccination levels:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcqlvbQ1u4lH4OoQjwryaHBFKwdX7KOHdCTsVfssZgIee7qY6aJ3v5zUoOdhdNqcpPB-a9INqZtoX3mXwMNUkJel2TbNXYdufyypqePM292-iSWVz34dUz-LEA43GIAsaxcBihgmR7GJ8G0nzO-1u0WKpaC5G_XWc-_6U99XF_PQ1t34xKbCP1YcvnU4Hx/s833/scataxmpfvph.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="833" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcqlvbQ1u4lH4OoQjwryaHBFKwdX7KOHdCTsVfssZgIee7qY6aJ3v5zUoOdhdNqcpPB-a9INqZtoX3mXwMNUkJel2TbNXYdufyypqePM292-iSWVz34dUz-LEA43GIAsaxcBihgmR7GJ8G0nzO-1u0WKpaC5G_XWc-_6U99XF_PQ1t34xKbCP1YcvnU4Hx/w400-h221/scataxmpfvph.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_20" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 258.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image015.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">Moving the percentage fully vaccinated to
80% decreases the average excess mortality by more than half, to about 41.5% of
what it was at 40%. So, very strangely, the positive effects of vaccination on
all-cause mortality seem to be bigger than the positive effects of vaccination
on COVID deaths! Not at all what you would expect a vaccine specifically against COVID to
do. At least, though, this seems to go against the hypothesis that vaccines are
a significant cause of the increases in all-cause mortality.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">But let’s compare this last scatterplot
with the first one, of average excess mortality against HDI. A lowering of the HDI
from 95% to 80% roughly triples the average excess mortality. A lowering of the
vaccination rate from 80% to 40% – in this selection of countries, the two changes
leave roughly the same number of outliers outside the ranges – increases it by
a factor of 2.4. This suggests, to me, that the vaccines haven’t achieved much,
if any, savings in all-cause mortality when compared to the benefits of having
a higher HDI in the first place.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h2><span lang="EN-US">A few more scatterplots<o:p></o:p></span></h2><p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">After first publishing this article, I
had the idea of also plotting COVID deaths per million and average excess
mortality against cumulative deaths per case. The rationale being that the latter
is as good a proxy as we have for the general awfulness of a country’s health care
system. The results were most interesting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUQWL_6r_O3lZ7JdSbzrb-lRbsdVa6muWTKIpZBYF2iR6I0xBs5l5Tr1WxVQQD66_DmWClxFUTKpYx11G4yt0yLozx1-3woKxMSyVYVLWiqkpxjqvBM9bxjxaYsy81z5-eqmFZNjSGJeozU5x_CZzVDbouTa5Ug3Zsom5gBaDlSVVNBLYdduSFQRE4LrP9/s835/scatdpmcdpc.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="835" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUQWL_6r_O3lZ7JdSbzrb-lRbsdVa6muWTKIpZBYF2iR6I0xBs5l5Tr1WxVQQD66_DmWClxFUTKpYx11G4yt0yLozx1-3woKxMSyVYVLWiqkpxjqvBM9bxjxaYsy81z5-eqmFZNjSGJeozU5x_CZzVDbouTa5Ug3Zsom5gBaDlSVVNBLYdduSFQRE4LrP9/w400-h223/scatdpmcdpc.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIj9VTPem5xaLT1PtYaarYgx7d1Hdm0704x0u9BZcMkXxziSm5zl_BN3IphrOZ5_1zMTeRRqeygo8_j9DtOIy3lNgXktMWhEXxos7kxtLCFdVigEy9thnKciI0DKJJlPzqxMKuExUruxa3VzfDwCNamqSySPpqANtIhtuwzErNggF4_CXGCgcxMR6mTv0p/s833/scataxmcdpc.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="833" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIj9VTPem5xaLT1PtYaarYgx7d1Hdm0704x0u9BZcMkXxziSm5zl_BN3IphrOZ5_1zMTeRRqeygo8_j9DtOIy3lNgXktMWhEXxos7kxtLCFdVigEy9thnKciI0DKJJlPzqxMKuExUruxa3VzfDwCNamqSySPpqANtIhtuwzErNggF4_CXGCgcxMR6mTv0p/w400-h221/scataxmcdpc.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1026" style="height: 259.8pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_2" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 258.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 468pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">
</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">That looks like a pair of pretty good
positive correlations, and with the ratios between slope and Y-axis intercept not
so far from each other, either. Leading to the very common-sense conclusion: Bad
health care systems kill.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span lang="EN-US">In conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">The UK’s and the NHS’s performance
against the COVID virus, compared with its neighbours, and even compared with
the other countries of Europe as a whole, has been atrocious.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">There is no evidence that the vaccines
have had any significant effect in controlling transmission of the virus.
Differences in testing rates and counting of cases seem to make more difference
than vaccinations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">There are negative correlations between
both COVID deaths per million and average excess mortality, and vaccination
rates. Though the first is, unexpectedly, less strong than the second.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">It doesn’t look as if the vaccines can be
among the causes of the high recent excess mortalities in many countries. On
the other hand, it also doesn’t look as if they have done as much to reduce
mortality as people were led to expect. The general level of human development
in a country, as measured by the UN’s Human Development Index, seems to
correlate better with reduced mortality than vaccine uptake does.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">Plotting COVID deaths per million and
average excess mortality separately against cumulative deaths per case (a proxy
for poor quality in health care systems) leads to a very simple and
common-sense conclusion: Bad health care systems kill.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-33860597517989169882023-09-11T09:37:00.006+01:002023-09-11T09:55:00.292+01:00ULEZ expansion: damaging, dishonest, and a disgrace to democracy<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikvYTwqipjp6wcjrfL_w5_szoqkiZHt4zqvw_MLWIEbOIMWn5rU5GB_PNADiaFvFmWB6vVYA4hg1OzZzUAglHDYZy9wSmxSxTfWSRuUuIX_MCbukltYjqfh_72hpWHbHKXrj1XfSfbx4XmCGj0GS7MhE2IxRa6w8iED8qwt_AY9QUk6TODg3U4rZulW5UA/s225/ulez.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikvYTwqipjp6wcjrfL_w5_szoqkiZHt4zqvw_MLWIEbOIMWn5rU5GB_PNADiaFvFmWB6vVYA4hg1OzZzUAglHDYZy9wSmxSxTfWSRuUuIX_MCbukltYjqfh_72hpWHbHKXrj1XfSfbx4XmCGj0GS7MhE2IxRa6w8iED8qwt_AY9QUk6TODg3U4rZulW5UA/s1600/ulez.png" width="225" /></a></div><p class="MsoBodyText">From: Neil Lock<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">To: Jeremy Hunt MP, South-West Surrey (<a href="mailto:jeremy.hunt.mp@parliament.uk">jeremy.hunt.mp@parliament.uk</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Copies to:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Rishi Sunak MP, prime minister (<a href="mailto:rishi.sunak.mp@parliament.uk">rishi.sunak.mp@parliament.uk</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Mark Harper MP, secretary of state for transport
(<a href="mailto:POCorrespondence@dft.gov.uk">POCorrespondence@dft.gov.uk</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Keir Starmer MP, leader, Labour party (<a href="mailto:leader@labour.org.uk">leader@labour.org.uk</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Cllr Nick Palmer, Waverley Borough Council (<a href="mailto:nick.palmer@waverley.gov.uk">nick.palmer@waverley.gov.uk</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Cllr Paul Rivers, Waverley Borough Council (<a href="mailto:paul.rivers@waverley.gov.uk">paul.rivers@waverley.gov.uk</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Cllr Penny Rivers, Surrey County Council (<a href="mailto:penny.rivers@surreycc.gov.uk">penny.rivers@surreycc.gov.uk</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Cllr Steve Williams, Waverley Borough Council (<a href="mailto:Steve.Williams@waverley.gov.uk">Steve.Williams@waverley.gov.uk</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">11 September 2023</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Dear Mr Hunt<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="margin-left: 14.2pt; text-align: center;"><b>ULEZ expansion: damaging, dishonest, and a disgrace to democracy<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I write to protest in the strongest possible terms about
the recent expansion of the ULEZ ultra-low emissions zone to the whole of Outer
London. This is already causing serious damage to the lives and livelihoods of
many innocent people. Having bought their cars in good faith, they deserve to
be able to run them without any penalty, all the way to the end of the lifetimes
they were built for. And yet, this ULEZ expansion will take away entirely the
mobility of many older or poorer people in Outer London, who cannot afford
either to pay the charges or to upgrade their cars. As well as harming, or even
bankrupting, tradesmen who are themselves, or whose customers are, in the same
situations. It’s often not feasible for such people to use public transport;
and for some, the public transport isn’t even there. As Cllr Colin Smith of
Bromley Council has put it: “ULEZ has very little, if anything, to do with
health and is nothing less than a barely disguised socially regressive tax
which is now set to destroy businesses, jobs and vital social and support
networks.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I myself lived in outer London in the early 1980s, when air
pollution was far worse than it is now. With the exception of diesel buses, I
did not notice any significant air pollution. And I was a cyclist in those
days. Measurements of pollutants on the roads of outer London now show no
problems at all relative to current air quality standards. (Except, perhaps,
for pollution from Tube trains!) Most people are now aware of these things. So,
we know that the ULEZ expansion is objectively unjustified, and no more than a
money-grab by Sadiq Khan.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Moreover, prime minister Rishi Sunak said recently: “I
just want to make sure people know that I’m on their side in supporting them to
use their cars to do all the things that matter to them.” And yet, he has
failed to follow this up by acting to postpone or cancel the expansion. This
calls into serious question whether Sunak is dealing in good faith with the
people he is supposed to serve. It also raises concerns about the directions in
which government, of whatever party, wishes to take us in the future.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">And let’s not forget the history. In 2017, ULEZ was only a
gleam in Khan’s kleptocratic eye. In 2019, it came into effect in central
London only. Only the “city slickers” were affected, so why should ordinary
people worry? Then in 2021, Khan extended it everywhere inside the North and
South Circulars. Making inner London a “no go” area for those of us who live
outside. Now in 2023, he has extended it to all the London boroughs. If Khan is
allowed to get away with this, what will stop ULEZ or similar schemes being
extended to the whole of the Home Counties in 2025, every town and city in the
UK in 2027, and nationwide in 2029? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">There seems today to be a political agenda to make car driving
unaffordable and all but unfeasible for ordinary people. While enriching both
government as a whole, and activist elements within it, particularly at the
local level.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">As if the damage caused by ULEZ expansion, now and in the
future, was not enough, there have also been many instances of dishonest behaviour
shown by those on the pro-ULEZ side. For example, the deputy mayor, Shirley
Rodriguez, attempted in 2018 to get changed the conclusion of a scientific
study that found no evidence of benefits to child health from the original LEZ
(Low Emission Zone) that had been launched in 2008. Fortunately, the professor who
led the study, being a true scientist, had the integrity to refuse her request.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">That same deputy mayor, in 2021, set out to whitewash an
Imperial College study that showed that the ULEZ had made only a marginal
difference to air quality after its introduction in 2019. As revealed by the
Independent, Rodriguez colluded with Prof Frank Kelly, head of Imperial
College’s “Environmental Research Group”, to issue a statement that
contradicted the findings of the study. Kelly did not help his cause when, in
June of this year, he wrote to prime minister Sunak alleging that politicians
were “not believing the science” on air pollution. But <i>whose</i> science?
Proper science, done with total honesty and according to the scientific method?
Or Kelly’s brand of politicized “science?”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Would you not agree, Mr Hunt, that individuals funded by
taxpayers’ money, who behave dishonestly in any part of their jobs, are acting
in bad faith towards the people they are supposed to be serving? And that they ought
to be subjected to sanctions, and even dismissal?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Then there is the case of Dr Gary Fuller’s “peer review”
of a paper written by a team from City Hall, which Khan hailed as a “landmark
report” and tried to use as justification for the recent ULEZ expansion. The
report attempted to compare emissions since the ULEZ expansion to the North and
South Circulars with a hypothetical scenario in which there had been no ULEZ. I
have not read this particular report, but I know enough about science to be
aware that such a methodology is fraught with huge dangers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">As I see it, science, when done properly, is fundamentally
honest. Politics, on the other hand, is almost without exception fundamentally
dishonest. And so, politics and science cannot mix, any more than oil and water
can.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">But I looked up a bit more about Dr Fuller. Having been
one of those who set up the London Air Quality Network (LAQN) in the 1990s, he
has a strong background in the measurement of air quality. I applaud him for that.
But he is also a “Clean Air Champion” for the “Strategic Priorities Fund Clean
Air Programme.” Which is led by the Met Office and NERC (the Natural
Environment Research Council), which describes itself as “the driving force of
investment in environmental science.” All this is co-ordinated by something
called UKRI (UK Research and Innovation), and funded by the “Strategic
Priorities Fund” out of the “National Productivity Investment Fund.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">This is a politicized rabbit-warren of quangos, no? What
good does any of this do for the people who pay for it, the taxpayers? The
minister currently responsible for all this, so I understand, is George Freeman
MP. I wonder how aware he is of what is being done to us out of his budget and
on his watch.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I looked a bit further back into the past, too. Knowing a
fair bit about the history of COMEAP, I was not surprised to see, as another “Clean
Air Champion,” the name of Professor Stephen Holgate. Holgate was involved in
COMEAP’s 2009 and 2010 reports, which together set out to get a handle on just
how big a problem pollution from PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides was. (And, in my opinion,
failed to produce a result that was in any way credible). Holgate was also chair
of the working group that produced the 2016 Royal College of Physicians report,
which spawned the infamous “40,000 deaths a year from air pollution” meme. It
was, simply, the most politicized “scientific” report I have ever read.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Oh, and who was the chair of COMEAP just a couple of years
later, in 2018? Professor Frank Kelly. What’s down there isn’t just a
rabbit-warren. It’s one inhabited by snakes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Meanwhile, Sadiq Khan calls critics of ULEZ expansion
nasty and false names like “conspiracy theorists,” “COVID deniers” or “vaccine
deniers.” A sure sign that he has no arguments with which to rebut the
criticisms. He is also chair of an extremist international “climate action” organization
of city mayors, called C40. Oh, and Khan claims the power to tax people who
live outside London. How can that be possible in a democracy, if they have no opportunity
to vote him out?<span style="text-transform: uppercase;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">So: We have damage, serious damage, that is being caused
to innocent people by the ULEZ expansion. We have dishonesties, of many kinds, by
those in and paid by government. These include attempts to manipulate science
to support a political agenda. And some, perhaps many, of these attempts have
been successful. The whole farrago is a disgrace.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">But there’s more yet. The UK is supposed to be a
democracy. That means that government is supposed to serve the governed. And
that what it does is only legitimate, when it operates for the benefit of, and
with the consent of, the governed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I will quote from the <i>Second Treatise of Government, </i>written
in the late 17<sup>th</sup> century by John Locke, father of the Enlightenment.
“The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and
putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.” “The
end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”
“Their [government] power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public
good of the society. It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and
therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to
impoverish the subjects.” The “public good” he defines in the First Treatise:
“the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules
it can be provided for.” He also says: “Wherever the power that is put in any
hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their properties
is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass or subdue them
to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it, there it
presently becomes tyranny.” These words, I think, are of great relevance to our
case.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">The tale of the “judicial review” of the ULEZ expansion,
in response to a case brought by four London boroughs and Surrey County
Council, is a very sad one. Here is Hillingdon Council’s statement of its grounds
for challenging the ULEZ expansion:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 306.9pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Failure to comply with relevant statutory
requirements.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 306.9pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Unlawful failure to consider expected compliance
rates in outer London.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 306.9pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The proposed scrappage scheme was not consulted
upon.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 306.9pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Failure to carry out any cost benefit analysis.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 306.9pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Inadequate consultation and/or apparent
predetermination arising from the conduct of the consultation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 306.9pt;">Was the process a proper judicial review? Did the judge go
over again, with an unbiased eye, all aspects of the case, and make a
considered judgement on each of the challenges? (Is that not what “review”
means?) Not a bit of it. The judge did not even accept for consideration the
two most important grounds for challenge: the lack of cost-benefit analysis,
and the lack of adequate and fair consultation. He went full-on with the
establishment line, looked for small “points of law” which supported Khan’s
side of the case, and ruled against the councils. I have read the judge’s
ruling, and it comes over to me as a “snow job.”</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">As to consultations, I have noticed that in recent years
government has again and again failed to consult the public properly on
environmental matters. An example of this was the 2020 “consultation” on the
proposed ban on petrol and diesel cars. All submissions that did not conform to
the establishment line – do it, and do it super-quick! – were completely
ignored. On this ULEZ expansion consultation, I am aware that there were
accusations of impropriety, notably those made by Crispin Blunt MP. I have not
been able to find any refutation of Mr Blunt’s allegations. That Hillingdon
Council’s challenge to this consultation was not even considered by the
judicial review, makes me very concerned indeed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">On cost-benefit analysis, the trail is even more
confusing. In fact, I haven’t been able to find anything even purporting to be
a cost-benefit analysis for the ULEZ expansion into Outer London. I did find a
reply to an FOI request, which suggested that a “business case” was made for
the 2021 expansion to the North and South Circulars. Such a thing might,
perhaps, have been a “cost-benefit” analysis from Transport for London’s point
of view. But I have seen no evidence that anyone in government has tried, in an
objective and unbiased way, to compare the costs to the people of ULEZ
expansion to Outer London against the benefits.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">The costs to the people are not only the direct ULEZ
charges, but also the knock-on effects which, in the words of Cllr Smith, “destroy
businesses, jobs and vital social and support networks.” The putative benefits
come from the improvement in air quality, which is to be expected. The two ought
to be compared. In theory, the air quality benefits should be estimated by
DEFRA, based on recommendations made by COMEAP as to how to do the calculations.
But COMEAP, looking at their latest (2018) report, seem unable to agree on how
to combine the “risk factors” for different pollutants. (Even if the risk
factors were accurate in the first place!) As a result, I can only conclude
that <i>no proper cost-benefit analysis has been done, or even attempted, on
the expansion of ULEZ to Outer London</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Recall that according to Locke, government has no right
“to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects.” What that
means today is that <i>all</i> government projects, of any significant size or
reach, ought to undergo rigorous and unbiased analysis, to check that the
benefits of the project to the people actually will outweigh the costs to them.
And, because the “public good” is “the good of every particular member of that
society,” no individual may be unjustly harmed, by being saddled with more
costs than they receive benefits. Where costs versus benefits are unclear for a
project, then the true version of the precautionary principle, “Look before you
leap,” should be applied. And the project should not even begin.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Next, Mr Hunt, I feel the need to address you, not just in
your role as “my” MP, but also in your official capacity as Chancellor of the
Exchequer. You are the current custodian of the government’s “green book,” the set
of procedures meant to guide cost versus benefit analyses carried out by the UK
government. In March 2020, a review was instituted which resulted in changes to
the green book. I quote from the government’s web page describing the change: “The
2020 review of the Green Book concluded that it failed to support the
Government’s objectives in areas such as ‘levelling up’ the regions and
reaching net zero. The review said this was because the process relied too
heavily on cost-benefit analysis, also known as the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).”
And there was “insufficient weight given to whether the proposed project
addressed strategic policy priorities.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">All this seems to imply that policies that the politicians
in power deem to be “strategic,” including “net zero” and – presumably, given
UKRI’s funding source – ULEZ, are to be exempted from cost-benefit analysis! No
matter how nett damaging the effects of those policies will be on the people
the government is supposed to be serving. You of course, Mr Hunt, will be well
aware which of your predecessors was responsible for this gross betrayal of the
duty of government to act for the benefit of the governed. But for everyone
else, I will simply say that his name has already appeared in this letter.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">And that isn’t all. There are wider issues of human
rights, too. We have a human right to freedom of movement. Article 13(1) of the
UN Declaration states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and
residence within the borders of each State.” Our basic right to be able to move
around freely should not even be questioned, let alone suppressed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Of course, this freedom must be tempered by our
responsibility, if our chosen means of movement causes a negative externality (side-effect)
to others, to compensate those who are harmed by it. But the process of
assessing such an externality must begin by working out the aggregate costs of
the externality to all those affected by it. And in the case of air pollution
from cars, this is precisely the “social cost” of the pollution, for
calculating which DEFRA, guided by COMEAP, are responsible, and which appears
not to have been done at all in the assessment of the ULEZ expansion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Now, I was trained as a mathematician. So, I know how to do
calculations. Back in 2017, I calculated the social costs of the PM and NOx
pollution from cars in the UK, based on COMEAP’s reports and guidelines up to 2015.
(<a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/the-social-costs-of-air-pollution-from-cars-in-the-uk/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/the-social-costs-of-air-pollution-from-cars-in-the-uk/</a>.)
The ULEZ charges were at least an order of magnitude higher than the actual
social costs per car per year. So, ULEZ was a scam from the very start. And who
came up with the ULEZ idea? A certain Boris Johnson.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">We also have a human right to privacy. Article 12, first
clause: “No-one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy.”
Now, the network of cameras, which has been installed to police ULEZ,
constitutes, in my opinion, serious interference with our privacy. For
government, or anyone else, to track <i>every</i> journey made by a car in an
area, without good and provable reason (for example, a reasonable suspicion of
real criminal activity), is to trash our right to privacy altogether. Even if
these cameras were not being used to enforce Khan’s thieving scheme, I would
still think of them as like a criminal “stalking” me. That is, persistent and
unwanted attention that makes me feel pestered or harassed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">There is a wider issue yet: the relationship between
government and the governed. In recent decades, successive governments of all
parties have taken to treating us more and more harshly, more and more
aggressively, more and more dishonestly, and with less and less of the dignity
which is due to us as human beings. We have been taxed ever more stringently.
Ever more restrictive rules have been imposed on us, including ever tightening
“targets” and “limits” on air pollution, and government overreach on COVID
lockdowns, and vaccination passports and mandates. And the claimed “benefits”
of these things never seem to materialize. All the parties that have been in
government in the last half century and more have done, and are doing, similar bad
things to us. And we’re just about at breaking point.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Then there is the matter of the side-lining of democracy.
Democracy has many faults; for example, when there is no-one worth voting for,
you are in effect disenfranchised. But a vote becomes of no value at all when
policies and the direction a country takes are being set, not by the people,
but by external forces. The EU, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum,
the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, C40, and others: all are
seeking to drive (no pun intended) the world in a direction that is diametrically
opposed to the nature, the needs and the desires of us human beings. They
clearly hate, and have contempt for, Western civilization, and want to destroy
our prosperity and everything we have achieved.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In the case of air pollution, the ultimate problems lie
with the UN and its WHO. The UN is also, as you will know, the driving force
behind the monstrous scam that is the green agenda as a whole, including
“sustainable development” and “net zero.” In a democracy, should it not be the
people who determine the direction in which a country moves? Not unelected,
unaccountable third parties with agendas hostile to human civilization? And is it not part of your remit, Mr Hunt, as MP for South-West Surrey, to defend the people of South-West Surrey against all attempts to impose on us any such policies, which go against our interests?</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Many people, particularly in the media, seem to be
surprised by the level of anger that is being shown, not only by those directly
affected by this ULEZ expansion, but also by those outside London who, like me,
are opposed to anti-car policies. The reason is not just because we have
sympathy for our fellow human beings in their troubles. It is also because we
know that, if this is allowed to go any further, we are likely to be next on
the chopping block. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Personally, I don’t expect the ructions over ULEZ
expansion to die down any time soon. I expect them to escalate, at least to the
level of the poll tax protests, maybe to another Winter of Discontent or even
another 1642. These are “interesting times” indeed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Mr Hunt, you are my supposed representative in parliament.
(I say “supposed,” because you have often supported policies to which I am
adamantly opposed, such as EU membership, “climate change” levies and
restrictions, IR35, and wars in places like Syria.) To be brutally frank, I
don’t expect that you will want even to <i>try</i> to do anything to help me or
people like me. But at least I have managed today to put on record some of the
real issues that plague us human beings in this country. It behooves you, and all
other politicians, to start working <i>for</i> the people you are supposed to
represent, instead of against us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I will leave you with more words of my 17<sup>th</sup>-century
almost-namesake and intellectual father, John Locke. “But if a long train of
abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design
visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see
whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse
themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to
them the ends for which government was at first erected.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 306.9pt;">Yours sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 306.9pt;">Neil Lock</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 306.9pt;"><br /></p><p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-60757489937624219782023-08-27T08:58:00.003+01:002023-08-27T08:58:29.683+01:00Close Down the Tube!<p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEircVP1_WxY6fapVhRlhjdth4hYMmg56VFYTPbiOB_TDW7dkwfEwJ1UKwYIMbirN47UGlysKUVELa5xTtpgpZmG-zJH8AncsuPqQCVRyEgnzAA6_X6R_z3_b2NAawhnSeU7T0ISJv1YllcZVf9mmanMumu7yy_C2t8PxtNtyZiTJDuDz6yIIlIw20fRQl43/s225/ulez.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEircVP1_WxY6fapVhRlhjdth4hYMmg56VFYTPbiOB_TDW7dkwfEwJ1UKwYIMbirN47UGlysKUVELa5xTtpgpZmG-zJH8AncsuPqQCVRyEgnzAA6_X6R_z3_b2NAawhnSeU7T0ISJv1YllcZVf9mmanMumu7yy_C2t8PxtNtyZiTJDuDz6yIIlIw20fRQl43/s1600/ulez.png" width="225" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing">Recently, I chanced on one of those rather awful talk-TV
discussions, about ULEZ. A former Tory MP was trying to get over the message
that Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ expansion into Outer London is nothing but a money-grab.
Two other panellists, and the host, were doing nothing but virtue-signal how
terribly important they thought improving London’s air quality was.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Now, I make no secret of my views on the subject. I
regard air pollution in outer London as a non-problem. I used to live in outer
London in the early 1980s, and the only pollution problem I experienced back
then was exhaust fumes from diesel buses. In those far off days, I was a
cyclist, and I hated the damned buses, particularly when they “cut me up” again
and again as I pedalled laboriously up Cricklewood Broadway on my way home from
work.</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">But since then, emissions from all forms of road
transport have been reduced by orders of magnitude. There was no big air
pollution problem on the roads of outer London back then; and objectively, there
isn’t any problem at all now. Any “problems” are only in the minds of troublemakers
with political agendas, like the UN and its WHO, and those that follow them.</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Yet there is a popular form of transport in London, whose
emissions of pollution have not been reduced in any serious way in decades. I
refer, of course, to the Tube. Indeed, a recent video monitoring pollution
levels at different places in outer London [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/together/close-down-the-tube.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span></span></a>]
showed that the Tube is a major <i>source</i> of pollution! Standing outside
Kingsbury station, with cars and buses constantly going by, the measuring device
showed no significant pollution. Until a Tube train pulled in… then the
pollution levels went right up! The levels started to go back down as the train
pulled away again. And this is an above-ground station; pollution levels are much
worse when you go down into the deep “Underground.”</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">The Daily Mail covered the subject a couple of months
ago, here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/together/close-down-the-tube.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span></span></a>].
This is quite damning. The only road on which this kind of pollution was even comparable
with the levels found on Tube stations was the North Circular itself.</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Watching these “talking heads” rabbiting on about how much
they wanted car drivers to suffer for “sins of emission,” I thought – Hang on a
moment! If you want to improve the air quality experienced by Londoners, then
surely the way to go about it is to stop people from going into the worst
polluted places? And stop the activities that cause that worst pollution?</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">So, why not just close down the Tube? Close down the
whole network, permanently! It would also hugely reduce pollution being
exported from the centre of London to the suburbs. Problem solved! Also, a huge
saving in public funds, due to not having to run the Tube system any more. Win,
win, win.</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Now surely, I thought, those virtue-signallers ought to
be overjoyed with this idea! Their attitude to ULEZ expansion proves that they
have no concern whatever for the people on whom they want to force sacrifices
against their wills and their needs. Therefore, how can there be any limit to
how much sacrifice <i>they</i> will be willing to make for the sake of the air
quality they feel is so important?</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">If closing down the Tube impacts their lives negatively, they
should be <i>eager</i> to take the hits! Should they not? For example, an
hour’s walk to or from work, or the supermarket, instead of a five-minute journey
by Tube. Or, some journeys they are accustomed to making – visiting family or
friends on the opposite side of London, for example – may become impractical.</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">And yet, I very much doubt our talking heads would
actually be willing to support closing the Tube down. Those that are so happy
to take away basic human rights, like personal mobility, from others in
exchange for an air quality “benefit” no-one would even notice, wouldn’t accept
anything that impacted <i>their</i> lives in the slightest. Hypocrites.</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Or how about Sadiq Khan? It’s thirteen miles each way from
his home in Earlsfield to his office in the far East End. Why doesn’t he cycle?
Every working day? Not on an e-bike, but on a goddamn pedal-power machine? Like
the one I rode from Nova Scotia to California in 1989? He’s only 52, and the
route is pretty damn flat. On your bike, Khan (or Khan’t)!</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Yet he claims that “security” requires him to be
chauffeured in a bullet-proof Range Rover. What a hypocrite! If he didn’t make
policies that victimize innocent people, he wouldn’t need “security.” The
police ought to withdraw all special security for politicians, on the grounds
that if people come to hate them enough to want to harm them, it’s entirely
their own fault and they deserve what they get.</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Why do we human beings need dishonest scum like Sadiq
Khan? Or politicians – of <i>any</i> party? Or talking heads? Or hypocrites? We
need only our own heads, and our consciences.</p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/together/close-down-the-tube.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QJpRrztcDM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QJpRrztcDM</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/together/close-down-the-tube.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12178301/The-London-Tube-station-air-commuters-breathe-toxic-BRICK-FACTORY-MailOnline-reveals-WORST-areas-pollution-capital.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12178301/The-London-Tube-station-air-commuters-breathe-toxic-BRICK-FACTORY-MailOnline-reveals-WORST-areas-pollution-capital.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-69112638577413768862023-08-25T11:01:00.009+01:002023-08-25T11:04:31.757+01:00Complaint to Transport for London on ULEZ expansion<p><a name="_Hlk143851805">I find myself appalled at recent
articles in the Telegraph, the Independent and the Daily Mail, that have shown
Ms Shirley Rodrigues, deputy mayor of London, to have been interfering in the
publication process of scientific papers assessing the effects of the LEZ low
emission zone and ULEZ ultra-low emission zone.</a></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">In the case of
the LEZ assessment carried out in 2018 by Professor Chris Griffiths of Queen
Mary University, Ms Rodrigues asked Prof Griffiths to revise his conclusion
that there was no evidence that the LEZ had produced any benefits to children’s
health. Prof Griffiths, bravely and rightly, refused to do so. For science,
when done properly, is an entirely honest affair. An honest scientific
conclusion is what it is; and no amount of politics can change it.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">That Ms
Rodrigues already “had previous” on this charge renders even more serious her
attempts to discredit the Imperial College scientists, who in 2021 published
their finding that the effect of ULEZ on air quality had been only marginal. According
to the Independent, Ms Rodrigues bullied Professor Frank Kelly, head of the
Environmental Research Group at Imperial College, into issuing a statement that
ULEZ had helped to “dramatically reduce air pollution.” This conclusion was in
direct contradiction to the findings of his own team of scientists.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">The conduct of Mayor
Sadiq Khan, Ms Rodrigues and Prof Kelly over this matter is completely
unacceptable for anyone funded by taxpayer money. Khan likes to brand those
opposed to ULEZ as “conspiracy theorists,” yet here we have evidence of a
deputy mayor and an academic conspiring to suppress the results of scientific
research. All three of them ought to resign their posts, and should never be
allowed to work for government again.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">The ULEZ
expansion is undemocratic, unfair and unnecessary. It is also enormously
damaging, particularly to older or poorer people, who cannot afford either to
pay the charges or to upgrade their cars. It must be cancelled immediately. If
the Mayor will not do this, then the Secretary of State for Transport must step
in and do it for him.</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing">Link to the article in the Independent: <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sadiq-khan-ulez-city-hall-frank-kelly-london-b2396312.html">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sadiq-khan-ulez-city-hall-frank-kelly-london-b2396312.html</a></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><br /></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-82380656190194839312023-08-20T09:25:00.000+01:002023-08-20T09:25:31.976+01:00An Open Letter to the Secretary of State for Transport regarding ULEZ expansion<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqWfa-82LfZUOfzY7XAlAzr-TasT34YXTjxHppMZ37ZvitOdguq5OrcQdBwdamlVQGPd3hk-ZPndTqILAucV4-votOE7OtLvg2lDkSehnR4C0FlieVQfkECdaDe3y6OdwcJxeJZn1Rwmcmt4KNni6epeGqkfIj0rhL9emVNAFKFOyqSCePXnkGsTK2_1Vf/s225/ulez.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqWfa-82LfZUOfzY7XAlAzr-TasT34YXTjxHppMZ37ZvitOdguq5OrcQdBwdamlVQGPd3hk-ZPndTqILAucV4-votOE7OtLvg2lDkSehnR4C0FlieVQfkECdaDe3y6OdwcJxeJZn1Rwmcmt4KNni6epeGqkfIj0rhL9emVNAFKFOyqSCePXnkGsTK2_1Vf/s1600/ulez.png" width="225" /></a></div><br />To: Mark Harper MP, Secretary of State for Transport<p></p><p>Copies: Jeremy Hunt, MP for South-West Surrey (under separate cover)</p><p>The Conservative Party (via website)</p><p>Dear Mr Harper,</p><p>When I wrote to you on 30th March this year with regard to ULEZ expansion and other anti-car policies, I made my views very clear. If you need a reminder, the letter is published here: https://libertarianism.uk/2023/03/30/another-letter-to-the-secretary-of-state-for-transport/. I am disappointed that you did not instruct anyone to reply to my letter, nor to my knowledge did you make any other statement about these matters.</p><p>I feel I am probably wasting my time and energy by writing to you about this. But I am appalled by the way you and the Tory government have allowed Sadiq Khan’s expansion of the ULEZ to Outer London to go unhindered, despite the overwhelming negative effects it will have on those who will be affected.</p><p>This expansion will take away entirely the mobility of many older and poorer people in Outer London, who cannot afford either to pay the fees, or to change their cars. As well as harming or even bankrupting tradesmen who are in the same situations. It’s often not feasible for such people to use public transport; and for some, the public transport isn’t even there.</p><p>And let’s not forget history and the trends. In 2017, ULEZ was little more than a gleam in Khan’s kleptocratic eye. In 2019, it came into effect in central London only. Only the “city slickers” were affected, so why should ordinary people worry? Then in 2021, Khan extended it everywhere inside the North and South Circulars. Making inner London a “no go” area for those of us who live outside. Now in 2023, he’s extending it to all the London boroughs. If Khan is allowed to get away with this, what will stop ULEZ or similar schemes being extended to the whole of the Home Counties in 2025, every town and city in the UK in 2027, and nationwide in 2029?</p><p>That doesn’t even take into account the cameras everywhere, that are necessary to police these schemes. That is a separate issue, and perhaps an even more problematic one.</p><p>Add to this the fact that there is no rationale for the ULEZ expansion at all. There is no real air pollution problem on the roads of outer London. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QJpRrztcDM. Khan’s “4,000 people die in London every year because of air pollution” is, at best, a fairy story. Let him show some evidence: copies of the death certificates. Even 40 of them. On top of that, even a report commissioned by Khan himself showed that ULEZ hasn’t brought any significant gains in air quality.</p><p>In any case, even from the very start, ULEZ charges were outrageously high, and never justified by the “social cost” of the pollution they would supposedly save. I was probably the first person to write about this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/the-social-costs-of-air-pollution-from-cars-in-the-uk/. ULEZ has never been anything more than a money-grab.</p><p>And then there was the “judicial review” of the case brought by the five local councils. The omens were bad from the beginning, when the judge chose not to hear either of the two most important complaints brought by the councils: the failure to do a cost-benefit analysis, and the failure to do an honest consultation.</p><p>Now, what is supposed to be the purpose of a judicial review in a supposed democracy? Is it not, when the legislative and executive branches of government have screwed themselves together into a knot, to take a wider view, and work out what is best for the people whom government is supposed to serve? Should not a judicial review look at all aspects of the issue, and deliver an opinion on the best way forward for everyone?</p><p>Yet, Mr Justice Swift seems to have based his decision on small points of legality. While ignoring major questions like: “In a democracy, why should the Mayor of London have any power to tax those who live outside his area, and cannot vote him out?” As well as ignoring the fact that the case for ULEZ expansion has no objective foundation. This decision was what I call an “establishment whitewash.” All too familiar. Think Climategate.</p><p>And then there is Rishi Sunak. He said recently, according to the Daily Telegraph: “I just want to make sure people know that I’m on their side in supporting them to use their cars to do all the things that matter to them.” So, why has he not already postponed the ULEZ expansion, and ordered a proper, honest, objective review of it? If he does nothing over the next week to at least postpone the ULEZ expansion, I think he will have seriously damaged his credibility with the electorate. I think we will hear many people saying things like “Sunak is no better than Johnson.” And that will, of course, do serious damage to the electoral credibility of your party as a whole.</p><p>Again, I’m probably wasting my time writing to you on this issue. Your entire party, as well as Labour, Greens and Lib Dems, are hopelessly dishonest. You have made the Enlightenment ideal of government for the benefit of the governed into a sick joke.</p><p>But I don’t think I’m wasting my time by putting my arguments on the record, so other people can understand them.</p><p>Yours sincerely</p><p>Neil Lock</p><p><br /></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-27981936399986352042023-08-19T11:27:00.009+01:002023-08-19T12:11:18.259+01:00Turning Our World the Right Way Up<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_6GR06t9iGVJE6LU8PcaMhx-OuQw8erYG2ErLWy247RTyoePSmuvK1QPNKpFWmXSDESMgPv0pkTnIItEDArn9IPj9pw_N2HCNOuci3oYkUxiQRLXQMHOxUj3F4xsM0Io7qZIvbdAVmEsM3A1-NIpnJxEdmqMwRs9n2Kp4tHh4bZwN0kRSs6Yjz1TdXQlO/s161/publogo2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="101" data-original-width="161" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_6GR06t9iGVJE6LU8PcaMhx-OuQw8erYG2ErLWy247RTyoePSmuvK1QPNKpFWmXSDESMgPv0pkTnIItEDArn9IPj9pw_N2HCNOuci3oYkUxiQRLXQMHOxUj3F4xsM0Io7qZIvbdAVmEsM3A1-NIpnJxEdmqMwRs9n2Kp4tHh4bZwN0kRSs6Yjz1TdXQlO/s16000/publogo2.png" /></a></div><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">(August 19<sup>th</sup>,
2023)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><span style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 60.6pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 96.6pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Foreword<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I have been writing for the cause of human rights and liberty
for more than two decades. In that process, I have laid an intellectual depth
charge underneath those that are seeking to kill off freedom and prosperity among
human beings. And I have set that charge, in particular, under the political state;
the institution that for over five millennia has done more to damage human
lives and to hold back human progress than any other.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Of course, it is possible that my – and our – enemies may
be able to defuse my particular bomb. But I know that I am not alone. Others
have been, and are, working along similar lines. If I don’t get through their
defences, someone else will. Our enemies, I think, know deep down that, like
the dinosaurs and the Neanderthals, they are slated for extinction. And good
riddance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">To the purposes of this essay. Recently, I completed my
three-year programme of diagnosing, and offering some solutions to, our
political ills today. But I found that I had lost sight of at least one vital
piece of the puzzle. I had not written, or even planned, an Introduction to
give the interested, but as yet uninformed, reader an idea of what my ideas are
all about.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Not only that, but I had become sadly accustomed to
finding my essays growing all but out of control. My most recent major essay stretched
to 29,000 words! However clearly and concisely I try to write, I find I need to
say so much that it becomes hard to avoid writing long, rambling, professorial-style
tomes. I therefore saw a need to produce a management summary, to pull together
a complete outline of my idea system, in a package small enough to be read in
one or two sittings. My target was 15,000 words. Missed; but not by too much.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Moreover, I felt a need to step back and look at what I’ve
done. I wanted one more chance to take a detached view of the whole, and to put
each piece into its proper order and context. This essay, therefore, is my
attempt to plug these gaps.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I very much hope that this particular essay may reach
further than my previous writings. Even to the extent that people may find
themselves puzzling over it, who have never before heard of the world-wide
movements for human rights and liberty, or even of John Locke or his Two
Treatises of Government. If you are one such, I say to you: Welcome!<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The timeline of my recent work<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In 2014, I wrote and self-published a short book called
“Honest Common Sense.” This described itself as “a brief philosophy for all
honest, civil human beings.” In August 2020, I decided to re-visit and update
those ideas. The result, which I titled “Honest Common Sense 2.0,” was a series
of six essays, published on-line in June and July 2021.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">The first of these essays identified the thinkers, past
and present, who have most influenced my philosophy; and outlined some of the
antecedents of my ideas. The second gave my viewpoint on human history in the
large. The third essay outlined my philosophical system, and the fourth and
fifth gave more detail on the individual building blocks within it. The sixth
and last sought to offer some thoughts on how we might seek to move from where
we are today towards a better world.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Having laid down my philosophical baseline, I then set about
trying to apply my ideas in order to improve the parlous political situation we
human beings find ourselves in today. The title of my series was: “Time to take
back our civilization from the parasites and pests.” I initially planned a set
of three essays: Indictments, Diagnosis and Cure. The first one was written in
November 2021, during the Glasgow CoP climate conference. It dealt principally
with environmental issues, and most of all with the vexed subject of climate
change. But it also listed many other bad things the political establishment
were doing to us at that time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">When I set out to write my Diagnosis of our ills, I found
that the work I had to do was at least an order of magnitude bigger than I had
anticipated. On top of that, during 2022 political events were happening so
fast, that I felt as if I was chasing after a moving target. I eventually
re-planned the series as a set of five essays rather than three.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">The only visible product of my labours in the first 11
months of 2022 was a single essay on the United Nations’ Sustainable
Development Goals. I found, to my horror, that these were “nothing less than a
blueprint for the complete destruction of human civilization as we know it
today, and for tyranny by a self-appointed global ruling class over every human
being alive.” And those that think of themselves as our masters had signed us
all up to these goals back in 2015, without ever giving us any chance to
object, or even to have our views heard.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In early 2023, I took a slight d<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">é</span>tour, to write a set of somewhat shorter essays,
collectively titled “Climate Crisis? What Climate Crisis?” The first covered
the accusations which are being made against us and our human civilization on
the score of causing catastrophic global warming. It also examined the
objective evidence on the matter. I concluded as follows: “Whatever alarmists
may say, I for one don’t see any evidence for a ‘climate crisis.’ Still less is
there any hard evidence that emissions of CO<sub>2</sub> by human civilization
are causing any climate problems at all. Nor is it at all certain that any
amount of reduction in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions would achieve any improvement
in the climate.” These simple facts are now slowly, ever so slowly, starting to
etch their way into the minds of the general public.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Again, the second of the set proved far larger and more
complex than I had expected. I therefore had to split it into four parts. The
first part told the back-story of what has been done to us over this issue in
the UK since 2019. A truly horrifying tale. The second delved further into the
past, giving the back-story on the green agenda up to 1992. The third gave the
rest of the back-story from 1992 to the present. This included the perversion
of the precautionary principle, which lies at the heart of many of the problems
we suffer today. This perversion, in effect, inverts the burden of proof,
denies the presumption of innocence, and requires the accused – that’s us – to
prove a negative. Combine that with suppressing the right of the accused, even our
experts, to have our case heard, and you have gross injustice. The last in the
set addressed the “long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all
tending the same way” (in John Locke’s words), which has prevented proper
cost-benefit analysis ever being done on policies like “net zero,” that flow from
the climate change agenda.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">My d<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">é</span>tour
over, I returned to my main set of essays, and was able to complete them during
the unseasonably cold, wet, windy July of 2023. Who needs “net zero” or
anything like it, if <i>this</i> is the kind of summer that we are likely to
face in the future?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In the remainder of this missive, I will provide a
broad-brush summary of the ideas and proposals contained in these latest five
essays.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Bottom-up versus top-down<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the very root of all my thinking is the distinction
between bottom-up and top-down ways of doing things. This can be applied, for
example, to the means by which an individual builds his or her world-view. A
bottom-up thinker assembles evidence and facts, then uses logic and rational
reasoning (including, where appropriate, science) to build the evidence and
facts into their large-scale picture of reality. A top-down thinker, on the other
hand, takes a set of ideas from someone else – often some religion, political ideology,
or popular fad – then tries to apply them to everyone and everything around
them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another area where bottom-up contrasts with top-down is
engineering. As computer scientist Arthur Norman has put it: “Building
skyscrapers top down is kind of a delicate matter.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This distinction between bottom-up and top-down can also be
applied to forms of social organization. In a bottom-up social organization,
every individual is important. Such structures tend to be de-centralized, more like
a peer-to-peer network than a hierarchy. A truly free market is an example of a
bottom-up social structure. In a top-down organization, on the other hand,
those at the bottom or periphery are commanded, or controlled, or both, by
those at the top or centre. All today’s political systems, even democracies,
are built on top-down lines.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>My bottom-up philosophy<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The distinction can also be applied to systems of ideas,
even to complete philosophies. My own philosophy, for example, is very much a
bottom-up one. It starts from what we are; from our identity and our nature as
human beings. Our nature is to be creative, to build civilizations, and to take
control of, and leave our mark on, our surroundings.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the next level up, we make sense of the world around us,
by identifying and seeking to understand what is out there, and so assembling
our store of knowledge. Next, we come to understand ourselves, our nature, and
what is right and wrong for human beings to do.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Beyond this, we base our desired social organizations on
bottom-up principles. We seek to create systems which provide maximum benefit
to every individual in them. For example, by upholding human rights, and
delivering objective, common-sense justice to everyone, while allowing maximum
freedom consistent with living in a civilized community. This produces what I
call Civilization, as opposed to the top-down politics under which we suffer
today.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the highest level, such bottom-up social structures
provide the environment, in which each and every human being can do what is
natural for us to do. That is, to be creative; to trade freely with others for
the benefit of all parties; and to live our lives well, and fulfil our
potential. And, in the process, to make ourselves prosperous and happy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Today’s top-down politics<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">In complete contrast is the top-down system called politics,
under which we suffer today. I call its underlying philosophy Downerism.
(“Downer” is short for “top-downer.”) I noticed recently that in different
essays I have tended to use different names for our enemies as a group. When
considering their philosophy of life, I have tended to call them Downers. When
considering their behaviour, I have usually dubbed them “politicals.” This is because
they like to use politics, either to enrich themselves or their cronies, or to
harm those they don’t like, or both. There is a close commonality between the
two, Downers and politicals.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Downer methodology begins with an agenda. Often, a more
or less thinly disguised programme of hatred and destruction. Think Hitler, Pol
Pot, Maurice Strong or Sadiq Khan.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Next, Downer agenda setters seek to use politics to force
their vision on others against their wills. They pursue power and control over
others. They seek political power, for themselves or for those who subscribe to
similar visions. They build a political movement, in order (apparently) to
legitimize their agenda and their ideology.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For Downers, legislation made by those in power trumps any
notions of right and wrong, and any ideal of justice. Thus, they seek to get
made bad and oppressive laws, with which to drain and to rule over people, and
to impose their agenda and ideology on everyone. Thus, once Downers are in
control, ethics goes out of the window, and so do human rights.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Downers require narratives and propaganda to sustain their
agendas. So, they like to create a mental atmosphere of lies and deceit, hype, gloom
and doom, and unreasoning fear. They season this atmosphere with fake or
misleading news, smears and insults. And they seek to suppress dissenting
views.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the bottom of the pyramid, the foot soldiers of Downerism
believe, with blind faith, in the Downer agendas and narratives. They promote,
support or enforce bad, unjust laws. They think that those bad laws are right,
just because some bunch of politicians made them. And that those who will not
believe the faith, must be made to follow it by force.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For Downers, the agenda, the ideology, the collective, the
state, the laws, the propaganda narratives, are everything. And the individual
human being, rights and freedoms, truth and honesty, right and wrong, objective
common-sense justice, and human prosperity in the free market, all count for
nothing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From the point of view of us human beings, Downers are a drain
on us and a danger to us. They truly are a down on us. For we want to be free to
build human Civilization. But they desire to preserve and to expand their politics,
and the (direct or indirect) power it gives them. Power to rule over us, power
to profit from us, power to impoverish us, power to oppress us. <o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>My view of human history<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">I gave my view of human history in the second essay of the
latest set. That essay also included a section entitled “My liberty journey.” The
nearest you will ever get from me to an autobiography! The following is a brief
summary of the remainder.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I see human history, on the large scale, as a running battle
between us human beings and our Downer enemies. Following an outline put
forward by an American thinker who calls himself Jason Alexander, I view
history as a series of forward-moving revolutions, in each of which we human
beings open up, and start to explore, new levels or dimensions of our humanity.
And we re-explore, and develop further, those dimensions which we had
previously opened up. But each of our revolutions is eventually followed by a
regressive, anti-human counter-revolution from those that are hostile to us and
to our progress. Downers, politicals, our enemies, call them whichever you
will.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the Neanderthal extinction, I count five of these human
revolutions to date, each followed by a Downer counter-revolution.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The Neolithic revolution and the first counter-revolution<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">I see the first of our revolutions as having been the Neolithic
revolution of about 12,500 years ago. That was when we began to settle down in
communities, to cultivate crops, and to domesticate animals. This turned us
from mere predator animals into human beings, capable of building civilizations.
It was the point at which we differentiated from, and became superior to, mere animals.
It was a practical revolution, and its paradigm was Humanity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In contrast, our enemies’ first counter-revolution, starting
probably around 3,200 BC, was the rise of the political state. And the state
itself – a top-down system that enables an élite forcibly to rule over a,
potentially large, group of people – was its counter-paradigm.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Ancient Greece and the second counter-revolution<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our second revolution, a mental one, was seeded in ancient
Greece, beginning around the late 7<sup>th</sup> century BC. Its paradigm was
Reason. It taught us to think rationally and abstractly; for example, to do
mathematics and philosophy. And it enabled us to build new and better kinds of
civilization, such as Athenian democracy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our enemies’ second counter-revolution began in the 4<sup>th</sup>
century AD, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire.
It produced a powerful church, to go with the state. Institutional religion
enabled the unscrupulous to control people mentally, just as the state enabled
them to control people physically. This led to the Dark and Middle Ages. The counter-paradigm,
then, was institutional religion, and the church that embodied it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The Renaissance and the third counter-revolution<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our third revolution began at the Renaissance. Its paradigm
was Discovery. Of ideas both old and new, of new places, of ourselves. It was a
spiritual revolution; a rise of the human spirit.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It helped us to emerge from the top-down tyranny of the
church and the feudal political system. It brought a sense of renewed
confidence in our own faculties. It brought a new sense of freedom for human
beings, who had been for so long suppressed by orthodoxy. And it laid the
groundwork for the later development of science.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our enemies’ third counter-revolution had two components: religious
and secular. The religious part produced wars, moral panics, Inquisitions and
witch-hunts. Even so, the power of the papacy, at least, was greatly reduced.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But the secular part was more damaging to us. It contained
three main strands. First, Niccol<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ò</span>
Machiavelli prompted rulers to be sly, deceitful, and unscrupulous. As well as
cruel, oppressive and heartless.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second, Jean Bodin articulated a new theoretical basis for the
political state, sovereignty. In Bodin’s scheme, the “sovereign” – the king or
ruling élite – is fundamentally different from, and superior to, the rest of
the population in its territory, the “subjects.” The sovereign has moral privileges.
It can make laws to bind the subjects, and give privileges to those it chooses
to. It can make war and peace. It appoints the top officials of the state. It
is the final court of appeal. It can pardon guilty individuals if it so wishes.
It can issue a currency. It can levy taxes and impositions, and exempt at will
certain individuals or groups from payment. Furthermore, the sovereign isn’t
bound by the laws it makes. And it isn’t responsible for the consequences to
anyone of what it does (also known as “the king can do no wrong.”)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bodin’s system was rolled out across Europe, and later the
world, as the “Westphalian” nation state. We’re still suffering under it today.
And whenever, as happens far too often, such a state is captured by those with
Machiavellian tendencies, then bad laws, cronyism, wars, injustices and
persecutions, corruption, inflation, heavy taxes (except on favourites), recklessness
and lack of accountability become rife. They’re all built into the nature of
the political state, and the nature of the Downers and politicals that like to
use state power to impose their nefarious schemes on us human beings.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Third, Thomas Hobbes invented the fiction of a “social
contract,” which makes out that each and every one of us has implicitly agreed
to be subject to a political government. Even one that harasses, drains and oppresses
us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If I try to reduce the essence of the third
counter-revolution to its major elements, I come up with four: Orthodoxy,
tyranny, dishonesty, and ethical inequality.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The Enlightenment and the fourth counter-revolution<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our fourth revolution was the Enlightenment. Like the
second, it was a mental revolution. Its paradigm was Freedom. From it have
flowed all the (relative) freedoms we have enjoyed in the West over the last
three centuries.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It brought new ideas, more friendly to the individual than
before, that are commonly called “Enlightenment values.” These included:
Greater religious tolerance. Freedom of thought and action. Natural rights,
natural equality of all human beings, and human dignity. The idea that society
exists for the individual, not the individual for society. Constitutional
government, with the consent of, for the benefit of, and serving rather than
ruling over, the governed. The rule of law. A desire for human progress, and a
rational optimism for the future.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But our enemies responded with a counter-revolution of many
strands. At its root, their counter-paradigm was collectivism. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
developed the social contract fiction into a collectivist nightmare. And Georg Hegel
demoted the human individual to a status of total subordination to the state.
Over time, a slew of political ideologies emerged, all of which were
collectivist and hostile to the ordinary, individual human being. Socialism,
nationalism, Toryism, communism and fascism, for example. Not to mention
theocracy!<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The Industrial Revolution and the fifth counter-revolution<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our fifth revolution was the Industrial Revolution. Which,
like the first, was a practical revolution. Its paradigm was Creativity, and it
was supported by the free market and free trade. It has enabled those countries,
which have fully embraced it, greatly to increase the general standard of
living of ordinary people. And so, greatly to increase their quality of life
and their happiness.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our enemies’ fifth counter-revolution, though, has been growing
for the last 80 years or so. Its counter-paradigm is Suppression, with a strong
sub-theme of corruption. Suppression of truth, suppression of rights,
suppression of freedom, suppression of prosperity. Suppression of our humanity
and our creativity. Suppression of <i>us</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Like the third and fourth counter-revolutions, this one has
included many different strands. The political classes in individual countries,
even in democracies, have become more and more tyrannical towards the people
they are supposed to serve. Governments and their cronies are coming to treat
us like resources to be exploited, objects, or even mere numbers in a database;
not with the dignity due to us as human beings.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On top of this, globalist and internationalist <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">é</span>lites seek to shape political
policies around the world to suit their own vested interests. Organizations
like the United Nations and the European Union have risen, grown, and become
more and more corrupt and tyrannical. The green leviathan, too, has grown, to
the point where it now threatens to destroy the energy security and the economies
of almost all Western countries, including the UK. And all for no reason but a
pack of lies and unfounded scares!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“Non-governmental” and nominally private organizations have
joined the bandwagon too. For example, associations of big corporations, such
as the World Economic Forum and the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, are seeking to force their view of the future on us, whether we
like it or not. Whole industries, like Big Pharma, will take any opportunity governments
throw their way to make themselves richer and richer at our expense. And banks
and other financial bodies are ready to “de-bank,” or otherwise to punish,
anyone who dares to speak out against orthodoxy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Meanwhile, advisors and influencers, technocrats and
“experts,” green, religious or political-correctness maniacs, financial and
big-business élites, academics and activists, and some that are several of the
above, fall over each other to take as much as they can from us, and to do as
much harm to us as they can. Life for ordinary people is becoming, more and
more, an Orwellian nightmare.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3 style="break-after: auto; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; page-break-after: auto;">So, where are we
today?<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Where are we today? In a nutshell: The current political
system has failed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Government, the very institution that is supposed to defend
and uphold the rights of human beings against criminals and wrongdoers, has
been taken over by, and is being run by, a cadre of those same criminals and
wrongdoers. Moreover, an international élite, spearheaded by the United Nations,
and including multi-national corporations, dishonest politicians, and activist
fellow-travellers, seeks to “unite the world” into a single world-wide
superstate, under the tyranny of a global ruling class, unelected and
unaccountable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further, today’s governments tax us all but out of
existence. They press ahead manically with tyrannical and destructive policies like
“net zero” and ULEZ, based on nothing but lies and hype. And the system is
rigged, so ordinary people cannot obtain redress, or even get our objections
heard.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Governments, at all levels, have lost trust in, and respect
for, the people they are supposed to serve. In return, very many ordinary
people have lost trust in and respect for governments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So-called democracy has failed. Most of our “representatives”
today fail even to try to represent us. They fail to fight, on our behalf, <i>our</i>
corner against all the vested interests that scrap for power and control over
us. And many of them actively support pernicious policies like high taxes and “net
zero.” Many of them are deeply dishonest, too, as shown by the scandals which
crop up so regularly.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further, in a supposed democracy, it should be the people
(that is, persons eligible to vote) who dictate the direction in which a
country moves politically. The people should be able to set the direction and
tone of government, and every individual should have a full and fair say in
what policies it will adopt; not merely a bunch of lying, thieving, scheming
politicians and their cronies. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Still less should that direction be driven by unaccountable
internationalist, globalist and corporate élites. Indeed, <i>any</i> democracy
worth the name must be based, ultimately, on self-determination for the people.
External parties such as the EU or UN, multi-national corporations, and groups
such as the World Economic Forum should not be allowed any say at all in the
direction in which a country moves. Only the people of that country should have that say.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, all the mainstream political parties today are bad.
Albeit, each is worse in slightly different ways. What is the worth of a vote,
if there is no-one worth voting for?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And further, as Mahatma Gandhi has told us: “In matters of
conscience, the law of the majority has no place.” The idea that ten people can
vote to tell nine people what is to be “legal” or “illegal” for them to do, is
a travesty of all conceptions of freedom and justice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Democracy, as it exists today, is coming to be seen as the
empty sham it is. Moreover, it ends up breaking apart the very sense of “we”
that seemed to give it legitimacy in the first place. The victims of unjust
policies feel harshly treated, and become disaffected. Those who have been
harmed by the policies of particular parties come to hate those parties, and
those that vote for them. As a victim of a bad tax law called IR35, which has
all but destroyed my career and condemned me to poverty in my old age, I know
that those who, like me, have been harmed by policies of successive governments
of all parties, come to feel hatred and contempt for the whole political
system, and for anyone that takes an active part in it. Thus, sham democracy destroys
the cohesion, the “glue” which ought to keep a community of people together.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>My ethical and political philosophy<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">To more constructive matters. When mapped on to the areas of
conventional philosophy known as ethics and politics, my system of ideas can help
to move people’s minds towards a future of freer, happier and more prosperous
lives for all human beings.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The name I use for the layer of my bottom-up philosophy which
corresponds to ethics (the branch of knowledge that deals with moral
principles) is Behave. This layer seeks to answer the question: What behaviours
are right (or wrong) for a human being? My broad-brush answer is: Right
behaviour for a human being is behaving according to human nature.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further, as I said above, it is our nature to be creative,
to build civilizations, and to take control of, and leave our mark on, our
surroundings. When dealing with the interface between ethics and politics, it
is the building-civilizations part of our nature which is most relevant. Put
simply, right behaviour for a human being is civilized behaviour.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the arena of politics and governance, the question I ask
is: How should we human beings organize ourselves for maximum benefit to all?
Thus, the name I give to the equivalent of politics in my system is Organize.
The bottom-up nature of my system means that ethics must drive politics, not <i>vice
versa</i>. So, the individuals, to whom governance must be of benefit, are
exactly those individuals who behave, according to their human nature, in
civilized ways.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A proper ethical code consistent with human nature, and a proper
system of governance based on bottom-up principles, can combine to produce the
habitat which we human beings need in order to flourish. That is, peace, human
rights, objective justice, and maximum freedom for all, including the economic
free market. Such a habitat will enable us to build a prosperous and durable economy,
and so to fulfil ourselves.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have distilled the Behave and Organize layers of my
philosophical system down to a set of twelve key ideas. I will now state, and
briefly discuss, each of them in turn. Those who would like a little more
detail should look at the third essay in my latest set.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Identity determines morality principle<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The first of my key ideas, I state as: Right and wrong
behaviours for a species of sentient beings are determined by the nature of the
species. Briefly put, identity determines morality.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus, any species of sentient beings has its own “natural
law,” which determines what is right and wrong for a member of the species to
do. Right and wrong for a giraffe, for example, are different from right and
wrong for a lion. A giraffe naturally picks fruit and leaves off the tops of
tall trees. Whereas a lion naturally chases, kills and eats animals like zebra.
If they tried to swap behaviours, both would go hungry, and many lions would
die through falling out of trees.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For humans, it follows that right and wrong behaviours are
determined by human nature. And, as I indicated above, right behaviour for a
human being is civilized behaviour.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Ethical equality principle<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">I state the second key idea as: What is right for one to do,
is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and <i>vice versa</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The principle arises from the premise that all individuals
of a species have the same nature. If they did not have the same nature, they
would be different species. And therefore, what is right and wrong for each
individual to do is the same for all individuals of the species.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This applies, in particular, to human beings. What is right
and wrong for any human being to do is determined by the nature of humanity;
what John Locke called the “law of Nature,” and many others have called natural
law. Thus, what is naturally right (or wrong) for each human individual to do,
is the same for all human individuals. And those that behave, habitually or
grossly, outside the bounds of human nature, are <i>not us</i>. They are not
human.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Honesty and integrity<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The third key idea relates to honesty, integrity and the
relationship between them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The word “honesty” has many meanings. For example, seeking
and telling truth, straightforwardness, trustworthiness. But my own definition
is all of the above, and more: Honesty is being true to your nature. Honesty is
behaving as is natural for a human being.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my take, integrity is the product of honesty. Integrity constitutes
the observable behaviours, which come from being true to your nature, and
behaving as a human being.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The Convivial Code<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The fourth key idea, I call the Convivial Code. It is an
ethical code of conduct, encapsulating the behaviours which are right (and,
implicitly or explicitly, the behaviours which are wrong) for human beings.
People who follow it make themselves convivial, or otherwise put “fit to be
lived with.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Convivial Code specifies (or more accurately, when it
has been written, will specify) a minimum set of standards of behaviour for all
human beings worth the name. It is, in essence, a touchstone for humanity. It
is based on human nature, and it is independent of culture.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will give you, at this point, John Locke’s simple and
straightforward rendition of the Code. “Being all equal and independent, no one
ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” So, no
killing of human beings, no physical assaults, no infringing on others’ rights
or freedoms, and no stealing or destruction of property. That’s a pretty good
start.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My own best shot so far at an outline of the Code is as
follows: Be peaceful. Seek the facts, and tell the truth. Be honest. Strive
always to behave with justice, integrity and good faith. Be tolerant of those
who are tolerant towards you. Respect the rights and freedoms of those who
respect your equal rights and freedoms. Don’t interfere in other people’s
business without a very good, objective reason. Take responsibility for the
effects of your voluntary actions on others. And practise what you preach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note that these are basic minimum standards for human
behaviour. Every human being worth the name ought to be able to meet them all for
the very great majority of the time. Those that fail to meet them habitually,
or in large matters, are not worthy of the name human being.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A problem with viewing ethics in terms of lists of obligations,
such as my list above, is that it isn’t always practical to keep to the
obligations with absolute strictness. For example, to include in the Code an
absolute prohibition on physical violence would be impractical, because it
would not allow those under attack to defend themselves. Each rule of the Code
must, therefore, also specify the conditions under which individuals may
reasonably break it, and at what level they may do so. Reasons for such
exceptions might include, for example: Self-defence. Defence of others. To
arrest and hold someone reasonably suspected of real wrongdoing for a short
period prior to trial. And to force a wrongdoer to compensate the victims of
the wrongdoing, and if appropriate to punish that wrongdoer proportionately, after
conviction by an honest court of justice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One way in which the Code will differ from systems of
political laws, is that the Code will be essentially timeless. Once set up, it
needs no legislative. Changes only become necessary when circumstances occur
which have not been envisaged before, or human nature itself changes, or new
knowledge becomes available about what it is. And these events are rare.
Because of this, absent such events, the Code will be applicable
retrospectively.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Rights are earned principle<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">The first four key ideas were concerned with right and
wrong behaviour in general. The next three address how a human individual
should behave towards other human beings.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My fifth key idea is the first of a matched pair on the topic
of human rights. I state it as: You earn your own rights, by respecting the
equal rights of others around you. By “rights” here, I mean all the valid
rights which have been documented in lists such as Magna Carta, the US Bill of
Rights, and much of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. And quite a few more.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my view, rights are not granted by some government, deity
or other external party. Each individual <i>earns</i> his or her human rights,
by respecting the equal rights of others. And this respect for rights is built
into the nature of any human being worth the name.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course, when you were born, you had already “earned”
these rights in principle, because you had not harmed, or tried to harm, any
other individual. But you must continue to respect others’ rights, in order to
retain and to expand your own rights.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Respect for rights principle<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here’s the sixth key idea. The flip side of rights being
earned is that by acting as is natural for a human being, and respecting
others’ rights, you acquire an expectation that others will respect your equal
rights. If you respect others’ rights, your own rights ought to be sacrosanct.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I put these two principles together as: Human rights are for
human beings, and human beings have human rights.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Judgement by behaviour principle<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The seventh key idea I state as: It isn’t who someone is
that matters, only what they do.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Judgement by behaviour represents a practice of judging
individuals by examining how they behave. It means that you should not take too
much account of things outside an individual’s control, such as race,
birthplace, social class, received religion or disability. Instead, you should
judge people by their actions. And, of course, their motivations for doing what
they do, as far as you can work them out.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another way to put this idea is: Human is as human does.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Community versus society<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">With my eighth key idea, I enter the realm of social
organization, classically called politics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I make an important distinction between a <i>community</i>
and a <i>society</i>. A community is a group of people, bound together by some
shared characteristic; but not necessarily by anything more. A society, on the
other hand, is a group of people who have agreed to join together in a common
cause.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A society has what Jean-Jacques Rousseau called a “general
will,” a will shared by the members as a whole. Provided, of course, that
those, who cease to agree with the objectives or the conduct of the society,
can freely leave the society.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A community, on the other hand, has no general will. Thus,
it does not exist as a collective, only as a group of individuals. The people
who reside in a particular geographical area, for example, are bound together
into a community by their common place of residence. But they are not a
society, because there is no common cause in which they have all agreed to
join.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Voluntary society principle<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ninth key idea, I state as: All societies must be
voluntary. This is the primary principle of organizing a Civilization, as
opposed to a political government.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This principle is explicitly supported by the UN Declaration
of Human Rights, Article 20(2): “No one may be compelled to belong to an
association.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A major consequence of this is that because those who live
in a particular geographical area are only a community, not a society, they
cannot be assumed to support or to accept any particular political ideology or
set of policies. Therefore, they ought not to be subjected to any political
government.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Falsity of the “social contract” fiction<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The “social contract” fiction was, so it seems, invented in
the 17th century by Thomas Hobbes. According to this narrative, at some time in
the past, a group of people (or, at least, a majority of them) made a contract
with each other, that they consented to be ruled over despotically by an
absolute sovereign. And that we, today, are still bound by their agreement. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My tenth key idea is that this fiction is false. Even if my
ancestors might have subscribed to such a thing (and, as far as I know, they
didn’t), I as an individual have never agreed to any social contract! Where is
my signature on any such damn thing? Moreover, where are the statements of the
benefits I am supposed to get from it, and the procedures for me to get justice
and redress if the government party fails to deliver?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The social contract fiction has led to an idea that there is
something called “Society” in the singular, to which everyone in a particular
area – such as the territory claimed by a state – belongs, whether they want to
or not. According to this narrative, all of us have agreed to an implied
contract, that makes us part of this “Society,” and thus subjects of a
Hobbesian sovereign. This, in turn, makes us subject to a political government,
and to the decrees of its leaders and officials for the time being.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The voluntary society principle leads me to reject this idea
of “Society” in the singular. I also reject derived ideas like “social justice”
and “social security.” And I oppose all political ideologies – like socialism,
communism and fascism – that depend on the idea. I also reject any implication
that I have ever agreed to be part of a <i>political</i> society (other than a political
party I joined voluntarily). And, having not voted in a UK general or local
election since 1987, I have never signed up to be governed by any cabal of
politicians now in existence.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I state this tenth key idea as: There is no such thing as
“society” in the singular. There are only societies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Common-sense justice principle<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">The eleventh, and perhaps the most important, of my key
ideas is the common-sense justice principle. I state it as follows: Every
individual deserves to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far
as practicable, as he or she treats others. Thus, common-sense justice is
individual justice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What this means, from the individual’s point of view, is
that if you treat others well, you deserve to be treated correspondingly well
by others. And if you treat others badly, you deserve to be treated
correspondingly badly. What could be more common-sense than that?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some may find this idea a bit scary. It is, indeed, close to
the vision of the prophet Obadiah: “As thou hast done, it shall be done unto
thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.” But the principle also
implies that if you don’t do, or seek to do, harm to innocent people, you don’t
deserve to suffer any harms being done to you. For good people, it’s not scary
at all.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the other side, if you do harm to others, or seek to do
harm to others, or seek to impose on others unreasonable risks of harm, then
you should be required to compensate those whose lives you damaged, and if
appropriate to be punished in proportion to the seriousness of what you did. Common-sense
justice is a hard taskmaster; but it is a fair one.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Maximum freedom principle<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The final key idea is the maximum freedom principle. It
allows maximum freedom of choice and action for everyone, consistent with
living in a civilized community.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have expressed it as: Except where countermanded by
justice, the Convivial Code or respect for rights, every individual is free to
choose and act as he or she wishes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Why do we need governance?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Next, a basic question. Why do we need governance at all?
Why can’t we simply get rid of governments altogether, and get on with living
our lives? I can think of no better way to answer this question than through quoting
from the Two Treatises of Government, written in the late 17<sup>th</sup>
century by John Locke, the father of the Enlightenment. The Second Treatise, in
particular, is for me the greatest work of political philosophy yet written.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In his Second Treatise (§4), Locke started from a view of
humans being naturally in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions,
and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the
bounds of the law of Nature. A state also of equality, wherein all the power
and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” Of this law
of Nature, he says: “The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it,
which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who
will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” I have already used this final
clause as a first cut at an outline of the Convivial Code.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Locke recognized that all human beings are bound together into
a community by this law of Nature. In <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">§</span>128
of the Second Treatise he says: “By which law, common to them all, he and all
the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society distinct from all
other creatures.” But he also knew that, among those born human, some fail to
keep to this law of Nature. For he continues: “And were it not for the
corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be no need of any
other, no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural
community, and associate into lesser combinations.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will add a brief note about the word “degenerate,” which
Locke uses here. It comes from the Latin <i>de-</i> (away from) and <i>genus</i>
(a race, or a kind). Through <i>degener</i> (meaning debased) and <i>degeneratus</i>
(no longer of its kind), it evolved in the 15<sup>th</sup> century into its
present form.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To counter the dangers posed by these degenerate individuals,
Locke posits (§95) that a group of people may choose to form a “political
society.” This they do “by agreeing to join and unite into a community for
their comfortable, safe and peaceable living.” This is his version of the
“social contract” idea, and his rationale for forming a government.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But he is very clear about the purposes of any such
agreement. “The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into
commonwealths, and putting themselves under government,” he says in §124, “is
the preservation of their property.” And in §57: “The end of law is not to
abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” Moreover, he says of
governments in §135: “Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the
public good of the society. It is a power that hath no other end but
preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or
designedly to impoverish the subjects.” And the “public good” he defines in the
First Treatise, §92: “the good of every particular member of that society, as
far as by common rules it can be provided for.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Locke also made it clear that any government, that departs
from its remit of upholding the good of every single individual among the
governed (real wrongdoers excepted), loses its legitimacy. He says in §201 of
the Second Treatise: “Wherever the power that is put in any hands for the
government of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to
other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass or subdue them to the
arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it, there it presently
becomes tyranny.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, he cautions in §12 that “a great part of the
municipal laws of countries” are no more than “the fancies and intricate
contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words.”
And such laws are “only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature.”
Otherwise put, laws made by politicians, that go against the law natural to
human beings, are not valid, and should not be obeyed by human beings.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In §149, he says of government power: “All power given with
trust for the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is
manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and
the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it.” Further, the people
always retain “a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they
find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.” And they are
entitled (§222) “to resume their original liberty.” So, if any government goes
rogue, we the people have a right to kick it out. And to replace it, or not, as
we choose.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In §140, he addresses taxation. “It is true governments
cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys
his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the
maintenance of it.” I read this as meaning that each individual should pay, for
any period in which government defends his assets, in proportion to the benefit
he receives from that protection. And I read “out of his estate his proportion”
as saying that how much he is expected to pay should be in direct proportion to
his total wealth. That means, there should be no taxes on incomes or on
transactions, no taxes at all on the poorest, and very definitely no
impositions on some kinds of people but not others!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And Locke is very clear and forthright, when he says in
§225: “But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel
what they lie under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered
that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such
hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first
erected.” That’s exactly where we are right now, in the UK and virtually every
other Western country.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Just governance<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Next, I shall outline my proposal for a new, bottom-up
system of governance, which could replace, and fix the problems with, the
current, top-down, failed system of political states and political governments.
This system can help us to “turn our world the right way up.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I call my proposed system, to supersede the political state,
“just governance.” I have used the word “governance” rather than the more usual
“government,” because I wish to maintain a clear separation between the two
systems. I discussed the new system in the third essay of my latest set. The
following is a brief summary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The functions of just governance<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The new system will govern communities of individuals, in
much the same way as a referee governs a football match. It will also adjudicate
as needed on the relationships between those individuals, the voluntary
societies to which they belong, and other individuals and societies they
interact with.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The primary function of just governance will be provision of
common-sense justice to all. Maintenance of peace and tranquillity, and the
upholding of the human rights of all those who respect others’ equal rights,
are also important functions. And just governance will allow maximum freedom
for everyone, consistent with living in a civilized community.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just governance will also include strong quality assurance
on its own processes. For example, lying, or any kind of dishonesty, by
officials of governance against the people they are supposed to be serving will
be a very serious, even a dismissal, offence.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just governance will also need some subsidiary functions,
such as diplomacy with other just governances and, for a time, with legacy
states.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Crucially, just governance will not have any permanent
legislative. For its code of law, the Convivial Code, comes from human nature,
not from edicts made by political <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">é</span>lites.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The character of just governance<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just governance will be bottom-up and de-politicized. It
will focus on the individual, and on small communities. And it will not allow
any political or religious ideology or agenda to be imposed on any of the
governed against their wills. Moreover, it will not seek to control or to
meddle with economic activity in any way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In structure, it will be like a network, not a hierarchy. It
will have no central or commanding point, at which undue concentration of
political power can collect. Except in clear emergency, it will be reactive
rather than pro-active. And it will have no mechanisms to enable one interest
group unjustly to override the interests of others.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The judicial function<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The primary institutions of just governance will be
judicial, including impartial arbitration of disputes and objective assessment
of externalities and risks. The major institution will be courts of just
governance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ultimately, the authority of just governance can only come
from its impartiality, its objectivity, its honesty, and the common-sense
nature of its principles.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As in today’s legal systems, I expect there will be a
separation between two areas of justice. On the one hand, arbitration and
restorative justice; that is, the resolution of disputes, and the calculation
and ordering of restitution for wrongs. And on the other hand, criminal or
retributive justice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another aspect of the judicial function will be to make
objective assessments of actual or alleged externalities (side effects), such
as pollution or noise, which cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause,
damage to others. If appropriate, those that cause such externalities will be
made to compensate the individuals and groups affected by the damage they
caused, each in proportion to the amount of harm they suffer. The judicial
function will also be able to analyze and assess actual or alleged risks, in
much the same way as for externalities.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Secondary aims and functions<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The secondary aims of just governance are upholding human
rights, and allowing maximum freedom for everyone. That freedom, of course,
must be tempered by individual responsibility for the effects of willed actions
on others.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The function that upholds rights would correspond, in
today’s terms, to a police force. Other aspects of the upholding rights
function would be the emergency services which today are often required, with
or without police, at or after incidents. Under the same heading, when
required, would come dealing with disasters such as floods, and defence against
invaders, military aggressors and violent gangs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Local and emergency rules<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">There will, at times and in places, be a need to make what I
call “local rules.” These are sane, sensible, non-politicized conventions for
the benefit of all users of the public space (that is, space open to all) in
the local area. But local rules must be kept to a minimum.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There may also be a need to make temporary rules in the
event of a clear emergency, such as a flood or an epidemic. But the scope and
period of such rules must be as limited as possible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>A possible structure for just governance<span class="Heading2Char"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">I sketched out some ideas on a possible structure for just
governance in the third essay of the latest set. The following is a very brief
summary. Of course, any new system on this kind of scale will have to be
prototyped first; and the good ideas taken forward, and the less good modified.
So, the system may end up looking significantly different from my proposals.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just governance will, by design, be de-centralized. The
communities, in which the governed live, will be small enough to produce
diverse “flavours” of community for people of different tastes. I have in mind
a town or small city, with a population range of a few thousands up to perhaps
a hundred thousand. Economically, different communities will tend to specialize
in different things. So, there will be much trade, both between neighbouring
communities and between those further apart. Moreover, free movement will be
the norm.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I envisage, first, local or neighbourhood organizations, on
a scale of a few hundred people. And second, community organizations, on the
scale of a town or small city. There will also be governance institutions, which
can provide services on a wider basis than just a single community. Anything,
which requires a larger scale of co-operation yet, will be handled through
alliances.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The neighbourhood<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">I envisage that the neighbourhood of just governance (NJG)
will be a voluntary society in a neighbourhood of a few hundred people, for
those who take an interest in just governance locally. Its main functions will
be to conserve the special characteristics of the local area, and to assess
possible changes to it, including the suitability of potential incoming
migrants. It will operate, in essence, by direct democracy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The community<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">I envisage the community of just governance (CJG) to govern
a unit large enough to be economically viable in the free market. I envisage
that CJGs will probably be non-profit companies. I expect the remit of a CJG to
be closer to that of a town council than anything else today.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would expect the CJG to organize those functions of just
governance which must be delivered at the local level. I expect the services to
include: Police (except detectives), firemen, paramedics and other first
responders. Maintaining a capability for military defence. Making and
administering local (and, at need, emergency) rules as required. Providing
premises and support staff for courts of just governance. And maintaining
pre-existing infrastructure in the public space, such as roads and footpaths.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In addition to regular discussions on CJG-level matters
among representatives from the NJGs, I expect there would be periodic (probably
yearly) meetings open to all community residents, something like a New England
open town meeting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>At the wider level<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The institution, which I expect to deliver those services of
just governance that can be managed and delivered from outside any particular
CJG, I have dubbed the Society for Just Governance (SJG). An SJG will probably
be a non-profit company. It will be the nearest equivalent in just governance
to a government today.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It will be a project management and contracting
organization, using externally sourced skills, such as detectives, judges and
arbitrators, risk and cost-benefit assessors, diplomats and negotiators, and
quality auditors, to do the work. It will compete with other SJGs in the free
market.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>How to pay for just governance<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">What an individual is expected to pay for just governance
should be in proportion to the benefit he or she gets from it. I see the
benefits provided by just governance – for example, protection of property – as
being in direct proportion to the individual’s total wealth. Thus, periodic
payments should be in proportion to the individual’s total wealth at the time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of the remaining current governmental functions, those services
which are necessary, but not part of core governance – such as welfare,
pensions, health care and education – need to be de-politicized, with control
being passed to those who provide those services. And new, just and more
flexible financial arrangements will have to be devised. Development of new
infrastructure will also need to be reviewed. I would expect that, under just
governance, most new infrastructure would be paid for by user fees, such as
tolls.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As an important feature of the system of payment for just
governance, there will be no taxes on incomes or on transactions. Nor will
there be any re-distributory or confiscatory taxation. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the best of all possible worlds, just governance might be
funded, in an area with a common currency, without the need for any form of
taxation resembling today’s. This could be done by allowing the currency to be
inflated by a small percentage each month or year. About 1.5% a year (0.125% a
month) was my back-of-an-envelope figure for what might be needed to support
the core functions of just governance. This would affect all assets denominated
in the currency, so should produce the desired distribution of payments
according to wealth. But to work out how to make such a system practical goes
beyond my pay grade in economics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The root of our problems<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the fourth essay of my latest set, I unveiled my
diagnosis of the root cause of our problems today. Simply put, the human
species, over the course of several thousand years, has split into two. And the
two branches have different, and incompatible, natures.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is worth observing here that John Locke, when he described
our enemies as “degenerates” (no longer of their kind), was already a long way
towards understanding this!<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Economic means versus political means<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, some philosophical background. The German Jewish
sociologist Franz Oppenheimer, in his book <i>The State</i> (first published in
German in 1908), made a very famous distinction between the <i>economic means</i>
of getting needs satisfied and the <i>political means</i>. I quote from the
English translation of his book:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man,
requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying
his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible
appropriation of the labor of others… I propose in the following discussion to
call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the
labor of others, the <i>economic means</i> for the satisfaction of needs, while
the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the <i>political
means</i>.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Oppenheimer also wrote: “All world history, from primitive
times up to our own civilization, presents a single phase, a contest namely
between the economic and the political means.” And: “The state is an
organization of the political means.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, compare Oppenheimer’s view of history, as summarized
above, with my view of human history in the large, which I gave earlier. We are
very much along the same lines!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And as to the state? Oppenheimer was right. The state uses
the political means as its <i>modus operandi</i>. But, surprisingly to me, he
did not observe in addition that the very resources, that have been taken away
from us through the political means, can be used to make policies and take actions
that go against our interests in more ways than just economic. What the state
takes away from us, it can then use to violate our rights, or to oppress or tyrannize
us. Or, as John Locke put it, to “impoverish, harass or subdue” us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Us and Them<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">I shall now compare and contrast the characteristics of those
on the two sides of the divide.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One side, which I call “we” or “us,” “human beings” or “human
beings worth the name,” has remained faithful to human nature as I have outlined
it above. Our natural way of thinking and doing is a bottom-up way. The
preferred habitat of our species is one in which every human individual has the
maximum chance to flourish, and to become happy and prosperous. That is, the
economic free market, supported by honest systems that maintain peace, uphold
human rights and freedoms, and deliver objective, individual justice for all.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The other side I call, variously, “they” or “them,” “Downers,”
“politicals” or “our enemies.” John Locke called them “degenerates,” a most apt
choice of word. For they have become estranged from us. Their nature is now different
from ours. Their way of thinking and doing is top-down. Their preferred habitat
is in positions of power and influence, direct or indirect, in a political
state. Or in some other top-down organization, such as religious, military or
big-company hierarchies, or organized criminal or terrorist gangs, or political
activist groups.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The dividing line, the blade that divides “us” from “them,” I
dub Oppenheimer’s Razor. We, by our nature, use the economic means in order to
get our needs satisfied. They use the political means. The two species are
physically very similar, even being able to mate with each other. But mentally,
and in preferred habitat and means of obtaining sustenance, the two are very
different.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Over the centuries, and in the last few decades in
particular, the two species have diverged so far, that the politicals have now
become actively parasitical on, and hostile and pestilent towards, us human
beings. And we, in our turn, are starting to push back against the predations
and provocations by our enemies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The behaviours of the two species<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Human beings are not perfect. But we at least strive to be peaceful,
truthful, honest, straightforward and respectful of the rights of other human
beings. We also strive to act in good faith. The great majority of human beings
worth the name are also prepared to “live and let live” in their dealings with
their fellows, and many actually manage to live up to this standard in
practice. In summary, we do our best to live up to our human nature.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In complete contrast, politicals often behave very badly
towards others. They indulge in lies, dishonesty, deception, arrogance,
hypocrisy, irresponsibility, evasion of accountability, aggression,
recklessness towards others, intolerance, bad faith, and violations of human
rights and freedoms. Rather than trying to live up to human nature, they live
down in the murky depths of <i>their</i> nature. They behave, for want of a
better word, like psychopaths.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Other evidence<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">In that fourth essay, I gave some further evidence to
support my case that human beings and politicals have diverged into two
separate species. I looked at the virtues and values, which are favoured by those
on the two sides of the divide. I looked at what those on the two sides tend to
fear and to hate. I found that I had no doubt at all that the human species has
now split into two sub-species, with two all but opposite sets of behaviours
which are natural to them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I concluded my case as follows: “Our enemies have been the
beneficiaries of a bad political system, that instead of favouring honest,
productive human beings, has favoured the most dishonest and corrupt. Today,
they are doing everything in their power to keep this system going, at the
expense of, and to the hurt of, all human beings worth the name. We must bring
down the politicals, and the system that supports them, before they succeed in
bringing us down to their level.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Parasites and pests<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">I identified, among the politicals, two overlapping
tendencies. Which I labelled <i>parasites</i> and <i>pests</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Parasites use the resources they appropriate to enrich
themselves and their cronies, or to rake in money in order to implement their
pet schemes. They are bad enough. But pests go further. Pests (or, otherwise
put, vermin) want power for the sake of what they can do with it. Pests want to
control people, to persecute, and to screw up people’s lives. I gave an
overview of the characteristics of parasites and pests near the end of the
third essay of the last set.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Neither parasites nor pests are fit to be invited into any
community of human beings worth the name. They are traitors to human
civilization, and to the human species. They deserve to be kicked out of human
civilization, and denied all its benefits.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The war we’re in<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">We find ourselves embroiled today in a war. It is a war between,
on one side, human beings worth the name; and on the other, political parasites
and pests. This war is an existential struggle for, if I may use a religious
word, the soul of humanity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Only one side can win this war. And I cannot conceive that
our enemies can possibly win in the long term. For if they did manage to reduce
us human beings to nothing more than serfs or slaves, their economy would
quickly collapse, taking them with it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus, we must fight, each of us in our own way. We must
fight for humanity, for reality and rationality, for our rights and freedoms,
for justice. We human beings must join together in resisting the parasites and
pests. And when we have fought off their aggressions and forced them on the
back foot, we must strike back at them with all the might we can muster. And we
must bring them to justice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The three mind-sets<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">At present, as I see things, there are three basic mind-sets
on display among human beings. There is the Downer mind-set, shared by the
political parasites and pests. There is a new mind-set, that is now starting to
fight back against our enemies that seek to destroy our civilization. And there
is a confused, angry, and yet fearful mind-set, which seems to be experienced today
by many ordinary people.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Our enemies’ mind-set<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Above, I listed some of the psychopathic ways in which our
Downer enemies are behaving today. And earlier, when I discussed their top-down
philosophy, I gave some pointers towards their mind-set. They are arrogant;
they think they are superior to others. They are hypocritical; they think that
what they tell others to do doesn’t apply to <i>them</i>. They have little or no
concern for ethics, or for human rights. They lie and deceive, and avoid the
truth. They routinely deal in bad faith. They favour hype and fear over
rational analysis of the evidence. They want to smear, insult, and suppress the
views of, those who disagree with them. They are reckless, irresponsible and
intolerant, and they accept no accountability.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But I am coming to think that the lies, hype, fear and <i>ad
hominems</i> our enemies spout may be more than just propaganda tools.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think they may be genuinely afraid of
something. Deep down inside, do they perhaps feel panic and fear for their own
futures? Might they have divined, for example, that the political system, on
which their entire privileged way of life depends, is not sustainable? That the
state is, ethically, already bankrupt; and perilously close to financial
bankruptcy, too? And that, on its present course, it will soon fail?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This might well explain why so much that political
governments do today is directed towards getting in more, more, and more “revenue”
for their state. Why our enemies rant so much about “safety” and
“sustainability.” Why they think their scares are “existential” problems. Why everything
is “worse than we thought!” And why, every time people lose interest in one set
of scares, our enemies dream up new scares to replace them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It could also explain why they refuse to acknowledge, or
even to look at, the facts. They don’t want anyone (least of all themselves) to
find out that their apocalyptic claims about climate change, or air pollution,
or whatever is the latest scare <i>du jour</i>,<i> </i>are unfounded! It could
explain why they brook no contrarian views, and why they so often seek to
suppress those views. Could it be, perhaps, that they have so much invested in
their scams, that they feel they can’t afford to let the truth come out?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It could also help to account for their mad, breathless rush
to get their plans implemented <i>right now</i>. Oh, and why is <i>extinction</i>
one of the things they are so worried about?<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The Re-discovery mind-set<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is a new mind-set around today. It is starting to take
root among many people who are dissatisfied with politics today, including
myself. Already, two of its visible results are a new, and greatly
strengthened, pushback by ordinary people against government overreach, and a
new determination to fight hard for our human rights and freedoms. In the fifth
essay of my latest set, I devoted several pages to some details of this new
mind-set.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I experience it, the new mind-set is moving in the same
direction as the new attitudes and ways of thinking, which became common during
the Renaissance. There is a sense of emergence, if not yet from the political
tyranny to which we are subjected, then at least from the mental tyranny of
thinking that the present system is natural, morally right and immutable. There
is a new sense of confidence in ourselves and our capabilities. There is a prospect
of better times ahead; albeit, that we still have a lot to do to get there.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The paradigm of the Renaissance was Discovery; of ideas both
old and new, of new places, of ourselves. The paradigm which underlies the new
mind-set, I think, is Re-discovery. We are starting to re-discover ourselves.
And the process of re-discovery, as with the Renaissance, will be a <i>spiritual</i>
revolution: a change for the better in the human spirit.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will re-discover our Humanity, our nature as human
beings. We will re-discover that we are naturally good. We will re-discover
that this is <i>our</i> planet, and its resources are for us to use wisely, to
build a home and garden fit for a civilized species. We will re-discover our Reason
and our rationality. We will re-discover our “bullshit meters,” which enable us
to reject lies, hype and unfounded scares.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will re-discover our human spirit, and our confidence in
ourselves. We will re-discover our consciences. We will re-discover the
built-in weather-vane or barometer, that gives us a sense of what is right and
wrong for us human beings to do. We will re-discover, and re-illuminate, the
crucial idea of human rights.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will re-discover the ideas and values of the
Enlightenment. We will re-discover the ideal of governance for the benefit of,
with the consent of, and serving rather than ruling over, every human being among
the governed. We will re-discover our natural industry and productivity. We will
re-discover our ability to solve problems. We will re-discover honest business
and trade for what they are: the natural ways for human beings to relate to
each other in the public sphere.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will come to judge individuals by their behaviour, rather
than by things outside their control. We will re-discover our membership in the
“great and natural community,” made up of all human beings worth the name. We
will come to care about all our fellow human beings; but <i>only</i> about our
fellow human beings. We will feel no concern at all for promoters, supporters,
makers or enforcers of bad laws that harm, or violate the rights of, innocent
people. Nor for liars or deceivers, parasites or pests, the arrogant or
hypocrites.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will start to think outside the political paradigm. We will
reject the political state and its “sovereignty.” We will reject the “social
contract” falsehood. We will reject all the mainstream political parties. We
will reject bad laws, that go against the law that is natural to human beings;
and we will cease to obey them. We will reject political government, and we
will withdraw all our consent to it. We will reject, too, all the
supra-national political organizations, such as the UN and EU.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will reject all those individuals in government, that
fail to serve the people they are supposed to be a benefit to, or that act with
dishonesty or in bad faith towards any of us. Or that harm us or violate our
rights, or support or co-operate with any political program that harms us or violates
our rights.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will learn how to identify as individuals the parasites
and pests, both inside and outside government, that are responsible for our
troubles. We will re-discover that they are <i>not us</i>; they are not worthy
of the name human beings. We will see them as the moral Neanderthals they are. We
will understand that we have no reason to feel or to show any more compassion
or concern towards them, than they have shown towards us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will re-discover just what it is that we want from our
new world. We want human rights and dignity respected and upheld. We want self-determination
and independence for everyone. We want an end to oppression, exploitation, war,
bad laws, gross or persistent injustices, violations of rights and freedoms, the
mental miasma of lies, deceit, hype, gloom and fear, and the culture of
over-safety. We want an unrestricted free market economy. We want maximum
freedom to choose and to act, and objective, common-sense justice for all.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The “pawn” mind-set<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">When I talk to people today, I often find they are both
confused and angry about what the politicals are doing to them. But they don’t
see any way that they, as individuals, can do anything about it. And as a
result, they fear the future, because they can’t see any way forward out of the
current mess.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I sympathize with them, of course. But I am coming to think
that the reason it is so hard for people to work out what is best to do, is
that we need an ethical and mind-set change to take place, before it becomes possible
to create change in the political system. So, what I want to do is to help move
people’s mind-sets, away from the confused and fearful state in which they are
trapped, and towards the new mind-set I outlined above, and gave more detail on
in the fifth essay of my latest set. Ultimately, this is the major reason why I
have taken three years out of my life in order to write these screeds.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is today a very numerous group of people, whom I call
“pawns.” These people are not parasites or pests, because they use the economic
means in most aspects of their lives. Nevertheless, they ally themselves with
the parasites and pests, by supporting the current political set-up. They do
this, primarily, by continuing to vote for mainstream political parties, and so
underwriting the charade of sham “democracy.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I call them pawns, because that is what they are;
foot-soldiers, that allow themselves to be used by the political parasites and
pests for their own ends. But they also buy, with far too little scrutiny if
any at all, the narratives of the mainstream media. They do not have enough
skepticism about what they are told, or enough desire to find out the facts.
And they often let themselves be swayed by falsehoods or by emotional
manipulation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet what would be the effects, if we could move sufficiently
many of these pawns towards our new mind-set of Re-discovering what we are? I
think that would be a key step towards kicking the parasites and pests out of
power, bringing them to the common-sense justice they deserve, and so changing
our world for the better.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>What we want from our allies<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is a brief list of what we want from those, whom we
seek to persuade to join our cause, and to help us set about building our new
world.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We want people to stop behaving like pawns. We want them to
stop voting for the “lesser of two evils” (or more than two). We want them to
reject the mainstream political parties – <i>all</i> those parties. We want
them to reject politics, as it is practiced today, altogether.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We want people to focus on the facts in any matter. We want
them to reject lies, hype, unfounded scares, and narratives that are not
grounded in reality. And those that purvey them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We want people to judge others, not on the basis of who they
are, but by how they behave. We want them to tune in to the part of their
minds, that tells them what is right and what wrong for human beings to do. We
want them to seek, with all their might, to become economically productive, and
as self-sufficient as they can be.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We want people to reject arrogance, dishonesty, deceit, hypocrisy
and the other psychopathic behaviours, that our enemies have displayed towards
us. We need them to help us raise a tidal wave of anger, hatred and contempt
against the parasites and pests that have robbed us, oppressed us and violated
our human rights and freedoms. And we need them to help us get those parasites
and pests off all our backs. And so, to turn our world the right way up.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>How to build the new world?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">In that fifth essay, I put forward some suggestions for
how we might go about starting to build the new world. Partly tongue-in-cheek,
I described what I could do if I were to be invested with the absolute
monarchical power of a philosopher-king over the UK and all its people. Of
course, the leaders of a new, anti-establishment political movement might well find
it easier than I to reach a position from which they can kick-start the
process. Or even, maybe, leaders of an ethical movement; picking as its target,
perhaps, dishonesty, arrogance, hypocrisy, or any of the other inhuman
behaviours our enemies so often display.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">But whichever way, it seems that radical new ideas and
actions will be required, in order to dismantle the political state and replace
it by a new and better system, without a period of anarchy, suffering and gross injustice
intervening. The key will be working out how, so to speak, to flush away the dirty
bath-water of the state without damaging the baby of Civilization.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Objectives and focus<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">But some of the things which will need to happen are clear.
I stated the objectives as follows: “To get rid of politics, bad policies and
bad politicians. Hugely to reduce the size of government, and the scope of what
it does. To withdraw from all international organizations and agreements, that
go against the interests of the human beings in the territory. To repeal all
bad laws, that are a drain on or a disbenefit to human beings. To end the
practices that have enabled parasites and pests to make gains at the expense of
human beings, and to hold those parasites and pests accountable for what they
have done. To move the laws of the territory closer and closer to the natural
law for human beings… And to move more and more towards a system of governance,
whose functions are restricted, as far as possible, to delivering peace and
justice. And in which everyone is treated, as far as practicable, as he or she
treats others.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From the outset, the focus must be to undo all bad political
policies, and to hugely improve the honesty, impartiality, objectivity and
justice of everything governance does. To get rid of all restrictions on the
economy. To establish sane and sensible policies on energy and the environment.
To get rid of re-distributory and confiscatory taxation. To move closer and
closer to the ideal that what each individual pays for governance should be in
direct proportion to the benefit that he or she gets from it. And to eliminate
all dishonesty and corruption from governance, and to make the parasites and
pests provide full compensation to the human beings they drained, or harmed, or
both.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Cultural changes<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">I gave a list of some of the more detailed policies I might
put in place, if I had the power. I would quickly set in motion several
significant cultural and philosophical changes in the way governance works. I
would make it plain that governance exists only for the benefit of those who
pay for it. And of <i>all</i> those who pay for it, real wrongdoers excepted. I
would require that everyone in governance must always be totally honest towards
the people. And must always respect the human rights and dignity of those they
are supposed to be serving.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">More specifically, I would ditch the perverted form of the
precautionary principle, returning it to “Look before you leap,” or even
“First, do no harm.” I would mandate objective, quantitative and unbiased risk-benefit
analysis and cost versus benefit analysis on all significant projects of governance.
I would mandate that projects in progress must be regularly audited. And I
would require that governance must always allow maximum freedom of choice for
everyone, and must never mandate a loss of backwards compatibility.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Policies<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">(More detail is available in the fifth essay of my last
set.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would withdraw from the United Nations and all its
agencies, except for peacekeeping activities. I would withdraw from the Paris
agreement, the Rio agreements, the IPCC, the WHO and all other environmental or
health projects in which the UN is or has been involved. I would immediately
suspend all green agenda policies for a period of 25 years, and end all
government funding, levies and other taxes, and subsidies for them. I would
suspend all these policies, together with air pollution “targets” and “limits,”
pending thorough, honest and objective reviews of all aspects of the policies. I
would ban green and “sustainability” activist organizations, including
companies which are members of such organizations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would sever links with the EU, preferring to deal one-on-one
with individual neighbour countries. But I would not, at least initially,
withdraw from the Council of Europe or its European Court of Human Rights, or
non-UN international organizations such as the World Trade Organization.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My foreign policies, broadly, would be to “live and let
live” with other countries willing to do the same. I would institute thorough
and objective reviews of military defence treaties, and in particular of the
future of NATO.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My policies on migration would be moderate, and always based
on respect for human rights and on the particular situation of each individual.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My environmental policies would aim to maximize the quality
of the <i>human</i> environment. All issues concerning the physical environment
would be dealt with by adapting to problems as and when they arise. All
analyses of future risks would be objective and honest. The approach to any
problem found in the physical environment would always be one of “polluter pays
compensation.” And compensation payments would be routed to the victims of the
nuisance, each in proportion to the harms they have suffered.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As to energy policies, I would immediately permit fracking
for gas, in any place in the territory where it is justified by the expected
nett benefits. And I would retain or restore permit schemes for new oil and gas
projects in the North Sea where they are appropriate. I would retain coal power
plants – with scrubbers – for as long as they are cost-effective. I would
abolish all subsidies for “renewable” energy sources. And I would lay out plans
to secure access for the people in the territory to abundant, affordable, fit-for-purpose,
reliable energy for the medium and longer terms. Both from nuclear power, and from
other sources.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would move very quickly towards a low-tax, high-growth
economy. I would end all predatory or confiscatory taxation, and all taxation
that re-distributes wealth unjustly. I would repeal IR35 and all other laws
that have put individuals and small businesses at an unjust disadvantage, and
make those responsible for these policies compensate the victims. Looking to a
future in which the “public sector” will be greatly down-sized and eventually
abolished, I would create an economic climate friendly to new and small
businesses.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would not make any immediate changes to welfare policies.
But in the longer term, I would seek to move welfare out of the remit of
governance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would recognize that the NHS must eventually be dismantled,
and its functions turned over outside governance to the people who provide the
services. But as with welfare, the change needs careful planning.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would set in motion a long-term process of de-politicizing
education, with the eventual aim of transferring control over individual
schools to educators outside governance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would close down the BBC.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would repeal all laws that permit police, or other
officials, legal privileges to do things that ordinary people may not. I would
cancel all laws “in the pipeline,” and repeal any recently made, that have had or
would have had an adverse effect on human rights or freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would order <i>post hoc</i> cost-benefit reviews on all
laws imposed as a result of EU directives, which were not already covered by
the green policy reviews. I would repeal all collective limits and targets on
anything. I also would repeal all “safety” laws made since 1992, that were
based on the perverted form of the precautionary principle and the culture of
over-caution it led to. Including smoking bans.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would end all anti-car policies. I would scrap the London
ULEZ, and its equivalents in other cities. I would order removed all low
traffic neighbourhoods, traffic filters, 15- and 20-minute cities, chicanes and
speed bumps. I would return the procedures to be used to set speed limits to
the rules in use prior to the Rio agreements of 1992. I would re-assess and
re-set all speed limits, which had been reduced since 1992, using those rules.
I would also progressively reduce subsidies for public transport, with an aim
eventually to phase them out entirely.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Risk reviews, cost-benefit reviews and historical audits<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">I see three types of reviews that will be necessary in order
to find out the full facts, and make the best decision as to how to proceed, on
each of the bad policies that have been imposed on us against our wills. These
include (at least) the suspended green policies, and the handling of COVID-19.
The reviews needed are risk reviews, cost-benefit reviews, and historical
audits.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The risk and cost-benefit reviews will be objective,
unbiased and quantitative. And they will be based entirely on the risks, costs
and benefits to the people whom governance serves, not on any political
considerations. They will also be accurate, to a degree well beyond what has
been normal for “government work.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The historical audits will assess the full story of how, in
a supposed democracy, policies came to be imposed on everyone against the wills
of many. And with little or no hard evidence that the claimed problems were
real, or that the measures taken would actually solve the problem, or both. These
reviews will cover all aspects, including: Validity and honesty of the science.
The conduct of government and its advisors over the matter, with particular regard
to truthfulness, objectiveness and honesty. How the matters were presented to
the public. Openness (or not) to non-establishment views. And the conduct (or
not) of public debates over the matter.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>On-going actions<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">My on-going reforms would be based around four main themes.
First, relentlessly driving down the size of government, and the scope of what
it does, at all levels, including territorial, devolved and local. Second,
bringing the parasites and pests to justice for their crimes, and making them
provide compensation to their victims. Third, laying the foundations for the
new way of governance in the territory. And fourth, doing what I can to help
move those elsewhere in the world towards better ways of governance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Over a period of some years, every government department,
employee, contract, project, and funding stream would be reviewed. These
reviews would, in the first instance, be aimed at reducing or eliminating
wasteful or toxic functions and individuals from government. Government as a
whole, and in particular its most overpaid and most dishonest officials and
bureaucrats, would be slimmed down by at least an order of magnitude. The
“civil service” would be decimated, and far more. But the reviews would also collect
information, on the basis of which to identify those individuals that have
behaved as parasites or pests.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As to bringing the parasites and pests to justice, there
would be three main prongs to my reforms. First, “politicker pays
compensation.” That is, removal of parasites and pests from government
positions, compensation to those they wronged, and punishment where
appropriate. Those that have harmed or violated the rights of innocent people,
or supported or co-operated with political programs that harmed them or
violated their rights, would be dismissed, and their pensions cancelled.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second, I would set up investigations into those
organizations nominally independent of government, which have or may have
violated human rights, or used politics for their own gain or for political
goals. Again, the politickers would be made to pay.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Third, I would invite everyone in the territory to report
any injustices or violations of rights, to which they have been subjected,
either by government itself or by politically oriented third parties. This
would obtain compensation for the victims of bad laws or policies like IR35 or ULEZ,
as well as people who have been mis-treated by police, bureaucrats or other
officials.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Through these three sets of programs, anyone that has used
politics for personal gain or for the gain of their cronies, or to unjustly
harm anyone or violate their rights, will be subjected to justice. That is, to
common-sense justice; being treated as they have treated others.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>The Great Restitution<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Great Restitution is the name I give to the program of
reparations for political crimes. It will assess the compensation payments owed
to each individual who has been harmed by political parasites or pests. It will
apportion the payments owed by each perpetrator, whether parasite, pest or
both. This process will also identify what, if any, criminal punishments are
appropriate for each of the perpetrators. It will look well beyond politicians
and government employees as potential perpetrators.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Parasites and pests, including warmongers, will be treated
with the severity appropriate to their offences. I envisaged (partly, but not
entirely, tongue-in-cheek) “parasite pens” and pest pits” as places of
punishment for these offenders. Either way, just governance will have power to
confiscate offenders’ assets, or to take most of their earnings, or both, to
provide compensation to their victims. As I said earlier, common-sense justice
is a hard taskmaster.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And pests and warmongers, in particular, will be subjected
to punishments appropriate to their crimes. Warmongers may well be extradited
for justice at the hands of those they ordered assaults on. And if anyone agitated
for hurtful policies to be imposed on others, we’ll give them what they want –
and we’ll give it to them good and hard. “Net zero” promoters, for example,
will be made to <i>live</i> net zero. If a net zero lifestyle – as I strongly suspect
– isn’t economically sustainable, then at least we will be rid of them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Moving to the new way<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would set up a special commission, to review in detail
ideas of human rights from the past and the present, and produce a new,
comprehensive Bill of Human Rights for all human beings worth the name. This
would be back-to-backed by a list of obligations, following which will bring
about an environment in which all these human rights are properly respected.
This would form the basis of a first draft of the Convivial Code. I would also
encourage the construction of prototypes, in which groups of volunteers can try
out aspects of the new way of governance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In parallel with this, I would organize the core functions
of governance – such as courts, police and military defence – into structures
compatible with the distributed, networked system of just governance for which
we will be aiming.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At some point, it will become plain that the new way of
governance has been tried and tested enough, that we can dismantle the shell of
the old. Then, all we have to do is formally close down the state, move entirely
to the new way of governance, and we’ll be free at last. And once one state has
been successfully dismantled and replaced by a new and better way of governance,
there will be increasing pressure on other states to follow suit. Then shall
humanity world-wide be free from war and oppression at last.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, once states, and the parasites and pests they harbour, have
been purged from every land, fixing poverty among human beings will become
easy. Let’s use our natural creativity, and let’s trade freely with our
fellows, to bring prosperity, happiness and fulfilment to every human being
worth the name. Let’s take control of our planet, as is our nature. And let’s
race away into a peaceful, free, dynamic, prosperous, truly sustainable future.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will, indeed, have turned our world the right way up at
last.</p>
<h2>Appendix: References<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here are links to some of my writings over the years.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To my latest set of five philosophical essays, “Time to Take
Back our Civilization from the Parasites and Pests.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l9 level1 lfo30; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Part One: Indictments. <a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2021/11/13/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests/">https://libertarianism.uk/2021/11/13/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l9 level1 lfo30; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Part Two: History, large and small. <a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2022/12/17/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-two/">https://libertarianism.uk/2022/12/17/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-two/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l9 level1 lfo30; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Part Three: My Liberty Philosophy. <a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/01/18/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-three-my-liberty-philosophy/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/01/18/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-three-my-liberty-philosophy/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l9 level1 lfo30; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Part Four: Diagnosis. <a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/06/21/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-four-diagnosis/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/06/21/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-four-diagnosis/</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 17.85pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 17.85pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l9 level1 lfo30; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Part Five: Cure. <a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/07/23/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-five-cure/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/07/23/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-five-cure/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">You can find the choral music, which sets the verses at
the end of Part Five, at <a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/07/26/peace-and-justice-for-ever/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/07/26/peace-and-justice-for-ever/</a>.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To the two stand-alone essays, which preceded the set of
five on climate change:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l10 level1 lfo31; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2021/01/24/green-industrial-revolution-or-great-leap-backward/">https://libertarianism.uk/2021/01/24/green-industrial-revolution-or-great-leap-backward/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 17.85pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 17.85pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l10 level1 lfo31; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></span><!--[endif]--><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2022/07/31/on-the-uns-sustainable-development-goals/">https://libertarianism.uk/2022/07/31/on-the-uns-sustainable-development-goals/</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">To the set of five essays on climate change, “Climate
crisis? What climate crisis?”</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l26 level1 lfo32; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/</a>
(also at <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l26 level1 lfo32; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/12/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-two-where-we-are-in-the-uk-today/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/12/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-two-where-we-are-in-the-uk-today/</a>
(also at <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/12/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-two-where-we-are-in-the-uk-today/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/12/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-two-where-we-are-in-the-uk-today/</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l26 level1 lfo32; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/13/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-three-the-back-story-up-to-1992/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/13/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-three-the-back-story-up-to-1992/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l26 level1 lfo32; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/14/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-four-the-back-story-since-1992/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/14/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-four-the-back-story-since-1992/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l26 level1 lfo32; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-five-the-case-of-the-missing-cost-benefit-analysis/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-five-the-case-of-the-missing-cost-benefit-analysis/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">To the six original essays, which describe my philosophical
system as it was in 2021 (much in these has now been superseded):</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">1.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2021/06/19/six-thinkers/">https://libertarianism.uk/2021/06/19/six-thinkers/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">2.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2021/06/24/the-rhythms-of-history/">https://libertarianism.uk/2021/06/24/the-rhythms-of-history/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">3.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2021/06/29/two-world-systems/">https://libertarianism.uk/2021/06/29/two-world-systems/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">4.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2021/07/04/the-i-dimensions/">https://libertarianism.uk/2021/07/04/the-i-dimensions/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">5.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2021/07/09/the-we-dimensions/">https://libertarianism.uk/2021/07/09/the-we-dimensions/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">6.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2021/07/19/us-and-them/">https://libertarianism.uk/2021/07/19/us-and-them/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">To some of my other essays which have been re-published at
WattsUpWithThat.com, “the world’s most visited website on global warming and
climate change.”</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">•<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/20/our-common-future-revisited-how-did-the-roadmap-for-the-green-juggernaut-fare-over-30-years/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/20/our-common-future-revisited-how-did-the-roadmap-for-the-green-juggernaut-fare-over-30-years/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">•<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/the-social-costs-of-air-pollution-from-cars-in-the-uk/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/the-social-costs-of-air-pollution-from-cars-in-the-uk/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">•<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/11/on-science-and-nonscience/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/11/on-science-and-nonscience/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">•<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/22/on-the-precautionary-principle/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/22/on-the-precautionary-principle/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">•<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/29/on-cambridge-university-post-modernism-climate-change-oppenheimers-razor-and-the-re-enlightenment/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/29/on-cambridge-university-post-modernism-climate-change-oppenheimers-razor-and-the-re-enlightenment/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">•<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/17/on-externalities-integrated-assessment-models-and-uk-climate-policies/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/17/on-externalities-integrated-assessment-models-and-uk-climate-policies/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-67796085075745582062023-07-28T21:04:00.000+01:002023-07-28T21:04:20.636+01:00The establishment have made a serious false move on ULEZ<p>When Mr. Justice Swift was handed the case of the five
councils versus the Mayor of London over the ULEZ expansion, he must have
thought it was an easy one. The establishment, both the “deep state” and the
politicians, told him with one voice: Find in favour of Sadiq Khan! He could
see “points of law” that would support that position. So, he looked forward,
not only to a high-profile, lucrative and easy case, but to the rewards that
come with finding in favour of the establishment.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Over recent months, it has become clear that the people of
outer London are not happy with the idea of ULEZ expansion. It costs them money
they don’t have, while giving them nothing at all in return. And for many, particularly
older and poorer people, it will mean an end to personal mobility altogether.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That has changed the attitude of a few politicians. Notably,
those outer London MPs, like Gareth Bacon, who actually do care about the
people they are supposed to represent. Well, that’s what “democracy” is
supposed to do for us. And even Sunak appeared to be wavering. But the
establishment have their agenda, and they didn’t want to be deflected from it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I did expect that Mr. Justice Swift (who, in the event, became
Mr. Justice Slowe) would try to temporize. To make a “Roe v. Wade” style
decision, which appeared to give ground to both sides, while actually satisfying
neither. But he chose to go full-on with the establishment line. The document
giving the ruling is not yet available. But when it is, I suspect that it will
be taken apart by every lawyer worth his salt.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I can’t see the implementation of the ULEZ extension failing
to lead to big trouble. Even to riots. I hope to see mass non-payment. The anti-poll-tax
slogan, “Can’t Pay? Won’t Pay!” will take on a new lease of life.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And when it finally enters the minds of the people of outer London,
and the rest of us, that Sadiq Khan was lying all along about air quality
benefits, and that the “consultation” was rigged, and that the judge in this
case was not impartial…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nigel Farage has recently shown us that the banks are
dishonest. We all know that the politicians are dishonest. Now we know, beyond
doubt, that the judiciary are dishonest, too.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is a very serious false move by our enemies the
establishment.<o:p></o:p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-9928796120422946052023-07-26T16:00:00.010+01:002023-07-26T16:17:33.232+01:00Peace and justice for ever!<p>In my last essay, "Time to take back our civilization from the parasites and pests, Part Five: Cure," I mentioned the music I had composed for the verses at the end. Here it is.</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='576' height='479' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyXHmDmsYRHFqz44d66gLfbStPa5p30Qpysm7ExylWpa4YJpiIwf2Du56vZHmvveFT-g-skrUW-hTqSH3_EqA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br /><p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-42010014544984621732023-07-22T12:15:00.055+01:002023-07-23T10:14:11.333+01:00Time to take back our civilization from the parasites and pests, Part Five: Cure<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText">(July 23<sup>rd</sup>,
2023)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGbjgxo8kafcPtFlgitXm1-29tcMJQ4sTY7Qr_QS5h1uo6tULh46ynrSaY7KsVgrobZydyMNCoK-OnTQ6915Q-7YMMLBc320M0FI80pqEBXP9rJzk9xwehl4JJD01_9KVaM0Yec7wPG90OxDx2_DC0hmS296BL4yu0Bwu9bMILsok6paQCRUdDoJY6z1Ns/s161/publogo2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="101" data-original-width="161" height="101" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGbjgxo8kafcPtFlgitXm1-29tcMJQ4sTY7Qr_QS5h1uo6tULh46ynrSaY7KsVgrobZydyMNCoK-OnTQ6915Q-7YMMLBc320M0FI80pqEBXP9rJzk9xwehl4JJD01_9KVaM0Yec7wPG90OxDx2_DC0hmS296BL4yu0Bwu9bMILsok6paQCRUdDoJY6z1Ns/s1600/publogo2.png" width="161" /></a></div><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><i>“We shall this
day light such a candle by God’s grace in England as shall never be put out.”<o:p></o:p></i></p><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l28 level1 lfo27; text-align: center; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->–<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Attributed to Hugh Latimer, burned at the stake
in 1555<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">This is the final essay of a set of five. It represents the
culmination of a process of hard (and unpaid) mental toil, in which I have been
engaged for fully three years.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">In the fourth essay, which you can find at [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>],
I diagnosed the root cause of the problems, to which we are subjected by
today’s political system. That essay also summarized, and linked to, the first
three essays in the set.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Today, I will address the question: how to go about curing
these problems? My arguments will, necessarily, be a lot more speculative than
my norm. More radical, too; and, on occasions, a little bit uncharitable. Not
to mention sounding, in a few places, as if I have something just a tad too
strong in my bubble-bath. But I will begin gently, by reviewing some things
that have happened in the last month or so, and summarizing those parts of the
earlier essays in this set, whose ideas are required to make this one as
stand-alone as possible.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">The essay will also, unavoidably, be long. In fact, it is my
longest yet! 29,000 words, begad. And the most wide-ranging, too. For all this,
I can only ask my readers’ forbearance, and offer the hope that they may find some
of the ideas, which I put forward here, worth far more than the trouble it was
to read them.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Updates<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">But before I start on my main theme, I will give a brief
update on a few things which have happened in the UK since I published the
fourth essay in this set.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Nigel Farage’s bank accounts<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">A strange and most concerning event happened very recently. Nigel
Farage, “Mr Brexit” no less, complained in late June that his bank told him
that they were about to close the accounts which he had had with them for more
than 40 years: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]. As
the saga has rolled on, it has become plain that Mr Farage is only one among
many prominent individuals to have been treated by banks or other financial
service providers in this high-handed way. Several members of the House of
Lords have also had accounts cancelled. And even the current Chancellor of the
Exchequer (<i>“my”</i> MP) has been refused an account with an on-line bank.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">As I wrote in the second essay of this set, “an
international élite, spearheaded by the United Nations among others, and
including multi-national corporations, dishonest politicians, and activist
fellow-travellers, seeks to ‘unite the world’ under the tyranny of a global
ruling class, unelected and unaccountable.” The recent Nigel Farage incident
has made it, more than ever before, clear that the international banking and
financial industry is a key player in this process. And that the “cancel
culture” is a part of their <i>modus operandi</i>. Leading to the thought: “if
they can’t de-bunk your ideas, they will probably try to de-bank you.”<o:p></o:p></p><h3>ULEZ, “pay per mile” and fines<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Then there is the on-going saga of the London Ultra Low
Emissions Zone (ULEZ) proposed expansion, and related issues.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">A High Court judge has heard the objections from several
outer London councils. As of July 20<sup>th</sup>, the judgement had not been
handed down yet. But London mayor Sadiq Khan looks now to be trying to cover
the possibility that the ULEZ expansion due next month could be stopped in its
tracks. He, and others, are now proposing a “pay per mile” system, or even a
“pay per minute” one: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
This would not only give them an opportunity to price poor people, and those
with older cars, out of motoring altogether. But it would also entail the
collection, using cameras, of details of when and where every journey by car in
London was made. In other words, government (and, by implication, the police)
would keep detailed records of every movement of every car anywhere in London.
In a Daily Express poll, 77% of people polled were against this scheme. Hardly surprising.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Even if it was not going to be used for charging purposes,
this scheme would be an obvious, and very serious, violation of our right to
privacy. “No-one may be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,”
says article 12 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. And you can’t get more
arbitrary or privacy-killing than snapping <i>every car</i> <i>wherever it goes</i>!<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Beyond this, motoring fines for even minor offences have risen
into the thousands of pounds. It is becoming obvious that all this isn’t really
about safety, air pollution, or any other perceived problem, real or not. It
seems to me to be a combination of two separate strands. One is a giant money
grab. More and more over this issue, I hear people saying <i>it’s all about the
money</i>. The other is a moral panic against drivers, designed by Sadiq Khan and
his ilk to force people, who can’t afford to buy new cars, out of personal
transport altogether.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The Uxbridge by-election<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">On July 21<sup>st</sup>, there was a by-election in Uxbridge
and South Ruislip to replace the disgraced Boris Johnson. It showed, to me,
just how rigged in favour of the two big parties the UK political system is.
21% of the electorate voted Tory, 20% Labour, 5% for one of a slew of 15 other
candidates. This compares with 36%, 26% and 7% at the previous general
election. Turn-out was 46%, quite a bit lower than the by-election average. The
silent majority, 54%, showed their contempt for the whole charade by staying
home.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It’s hard to understand how anyone could possibly vote <i>for</i>
the Tories, after all that Johnson did. So, most of those Tory votes, I guess,
must have been votes <i>against</i> Labour, and specifically against the ULEZ
expansion, because Uxbridge is right on the edge of London. As to how anyone
could see fit to vote Labour at all, your guess is as good as mine. As virtually
always these days, there was no-one worth voting for who had any real chance of
winning. “Democracy” of such a kind is simply not fit for purpose.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>How I became an ethical and political philosopher<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">To return to my main theme. I never intended to become
a philosopher. I had been prospering as a one-man software consultant into my
mid-40s, until New Labour brought in a bad tax law called IR35, which has all
but destroyed my career. I will never forgive them for that. Nor will I ever
forgive the Tories. Not only for failing to repeal it as they initially
promised, but more recently for strengthening it, and extending it to people
like lorry drivers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">While I did manage to find some partial work-arounds, IR35
meant that I was effectively banned from the general market, and could only
work with people who already knew what I could do and how I operated, and fully
trusted me. This cut my earning power, for more than 20 years, to only a third
or a quarter of what it should have been. Meaning that, having recently reached
70, I now face undeserved poverty for what remains of my life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But there has been a silver lining, of a kind. For I have
had enough time to undertake programmes of study, to think deeply, and to
write. I described how I got where I am today in a section titled “My liberty
journey,” in the second essay of this set.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I have long had a strong interest in ethics. And I take the
view that ethics should drive politics, not the other way round. I had written
about this viewpoint in a short book, “Honest Common Sense,” which I
self-published in 2014. I spent much of 2020 and the first half of 2021
reviewing, updating and making clearer my philosophical thinking as a whole. My
work since then has focused on two main areas. First, on the green and “net zero”
agenda, and the back-story behind it. And second, on political philosophy. And,
in particular, how we got into the parlous situation we are now in, where we
need to go from here, just what it is that has gone wrong, and how we might go
about curing the problems.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The green agenda<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">On the green issues, I wrote two stand-alone essays,
followed by a set of five. The first essay was about the “Green Industrial
Revolution” proposals, made by Boris Johnson and co in late 2020. Most of the
ideas put forward there were either not properly costed or thought through, impractical,
already tried and failed, unaffordable and disruptive, or dangerous
pipe-dreams. Or some combination of several of these.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">As to the politics behind them, it’s clear that those that
favour such schemes don’t want the world economy to grow. They don’t want
ordinary people to be prosperous, or to have freedom of choice in how we live
our lives. And they are so dishonest, that they try to sell the dreary,
depressing nightmare world they want to subject us to as if it was a benefit to
us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The second stand-alone essay addressed the United Nations’
“Sustainable Development Goals.” I looked at the agenda, to which those that
think of themselves as our betters signed us up in 2015 without ever bothering
to consult us. And I found it to be nothing less than a blueprint for the
complete destruction of human industrial civilization as we know it today, and
for tyranny by a self-appointed global ruling class over every human being
alive. I came to the conclusion that the world-view of those peddling this
agenda is a globalist form of fascism. And that the sustainable development
agenda, wherever implemented, will produce results that are quite the opposite
of sustainable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">My more recent set of five essays addressed the accusations
made against our human civilization under the banner of “catastrophic
anthropogenic global warming.” They, too, are linked from the fourth essay in
this set.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I looked for evidence for the “climate crisis” that is claimed
by the alarmists, and found no objective evidence of any such thing. Nor did I
find any hard evidence that emissions of CO<sub>2</sub> from human civilization
have caused or are causing any climate problems at all. Or that any amount of
reduction in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions would achieve any improvement in the
climate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, I documented in some detail the history and
back-story of this part of the green agenda. I found a long trail of arrogant,
dishonest, corrupt, reckless behaviours by governments towards us ordinary
people. I told of their corruption of science, their moving of the goalposts, their
lies and scares, their whitewashing of real wrongdoings, their suppression of
dissenting views. I told of their perversion of the precautionary principle, which
has completely side-lined any possibility of objective risk analysis. And I
told of the “long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending
the same way” (words of John Locke, [<a name="_Ref138072560"></a><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]), by which they have prevented any
attempt at objective, rigorous cost-benefit analysis on issues involving carbon
dioxide emissions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">As an aside, Locke’s Two Treatises of Government are
available, for free, on the Internet here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
Both are very much worth a read. But in my view, the Second Treatise is nothing
less than the most important work of human political philosophy to date.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Time to take back our civilization from the parasites and pests<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">To my current set of essays. In the first four, I have looked
on several different timescales at the history, which has led to the situation
we human beings are in today. I have set out the main points of my political
philosophy, outlined the major principles on which a new and better system of
governance could be built, and sketched how such a system might work. And I
have made my diagnosis of the root cause of the problems we are facing today.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>A species split<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoBodyText">I will now summarize what I see as the root cause of our
problems today, as I diagnosed that cause in the fourth essay. It turns out to
be, that the human species has split into two very different, and completely incompatible,
sub-species.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Human beings<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoBodyText">On one side, we have a species I call just <i>human beings</i>,
or sometimes <i>human beings worth the name</i>. Our natural means of getting
our needs satisfied is what German Jewish philosopher Franz Oppenheimer, in his
book <i>The State </i>(1908, English translation 1922), called the <i>economic
means</i>. He described this as “the equivalent exchange of one’s own labour
for the labour of others.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">The habitat, in which our species can best flourish, is a
free market economy, underpinned by systems which maintain peace and objective justice,
and which allow maximum freedom for all human individuals. In such a habitat,
we can build civilizations, and take control over our surroundings. Because of
this, I name us the <i>economic species</i> or <i>economic animal</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Politicals<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoBodyText">On the other side, we have a species, to which I have
given the name <i>politicals</i>. Their natural means of getting their needs
satisfied is what Oppenheimer called the <i>political means</i>: “the
unrequited appropriation of the labour of others.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">The habitat, in which this species best flourishes, is in
positions of power in top-down systems. Such as: Governments. Religious,
military or big-company hierarchies. Organized criminal or terrorist gangs. Or
political activist groups. Such a habitat enables them to pervert the natural human
urge to take control over our surroundings, into an un-natural and destructive
urge to control <i>us human beings</i>. Thus, I dub them the <i>political
species</i> or, in Aristotle’s words, <i>political animal</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Parasites and pests<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I identified, among users of Oppenheimer’s political means,
two overlapping tendencies. Which I labelled <i>parasites</i> and <i>pests</i>.
Parasites use the resources they appropriate to enrich themselves and their
cronies, or to rake in money in order to implement their pet schemes. They are
bad enough. But pests go further. Pests (or, otherwise put, vermin) want power
for the sake of what they can do with it. Pests want to control people, to
persecute, and to screw up people’s lives. I gave an overview of the
characteristics of parasites and pests near the end of the third essay of this
set.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The natures of the two species<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoBodyText" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">I looked at the behaviours, which typify members of
these two opposed species, and tried to infer the natures of each.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Each of us reflects the characteristics needed to survive
and prosper in the habitat which is natural to us. We human beings are naturally
peaceful and honest. We are fit to be lived with in a civilization of peace,
progress and prosperity, driven by Franz Oppenheimer’s economic means. We are
born on this planet with the right to use its resources wisely, in order to
build our civilizations. And our long-term mission is to make our planet into a
beautiful, peaceful, comfortable home and garden for our species, humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Our enemies the politicals, on the other hand, are
Machiavellian in their characters. They survive and prosper best in conditions that
enable them to use the political means to take our resources from us. In order
to survive and flourish, they need to drain us, or to persecute us and screw up
our lives, or both. And they persistently indulge in lies, dishonesty,
deception, arrogance, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, evasion of accountability,
aggression, recklessness towards others, intolerance, bad faith, and violations
of human rights and freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The timing of the split<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">A view maintained by many scientists is that the process of
species change is driven only by random genetic mutations, and must, therefore,
be very slow. However, the research on Darwin’s finches, which I referenced in the
fourth essay, indicates that behavioural changes, at least, can take place
within just a couple of generations. Indeed, a recent article about the
separation of polar bears from grizzly bears [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]
suggests that even physical speciation may act faster than previously thought.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Given both these examples, the idea that human beings and
politicals have had enough time to diverge since the first states appeared (by
my best guess, around 5,200 years ago) looks quite plausible.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>The current political system<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">Next, I will look at the current political system. I shall
begin by defining in my own terms, and giving some of my views on, the major ideas
which underlie the it.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Politics<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">In ancient Greece, politics could mean the rights of
citizens in a city-state, or those citizens considered as a community. More
recently, it has been used to mean a form of government, or the activities
carried out by a government.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I myself find “politics” to be an entirely pejorative word.
Politics is a top-down system, in which “laws,” driven by the agendas of a
powerful élite,
make some things “legal” and others “illegal.” And what is ethically right and
wrong for human beings to do becomes irrelevant.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The state<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">The state is a top-down political structure, that
enables an élite forcibly to rule over a, potentially large, group of people. It
has been in existence for more than five thousand years. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The state arose out of wars, and the coercive measures taken
by the winners of those wars against the losers. Positions of state power have
long provided, and still do provide, a perfect environment for parasites and
pests to flourish, and to carry out their Machiavellian schemes.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Sovereignty<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Sovereignty is a theoretical basis for political states, which
was first articulated in the 16<sup>th</sup> century by French monarchist Jean
Bodin. It produced, among others, the French “Sun King,” Louis XIV. And despite
constitutions, bills of rights, parliaments, sham “democracy” and other bags on
the side, it still forms the intellectual basis for political nation-states
today. Including the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In Bodin’s scheme, the sovereign – the king or ruling élite
of a territory – is fundamentally different from, and superior to, the rest of
the population in its territory, the “subjects.” It has moral privileges over
the subjects, whom it can make laws to bind. It can give privileges to those it
chooses to. It can make war and peace. It appoints the top officials of the
state. It is the final court of appeal. It can pardon guilty individuals if it
so wishes. It has a monopoly on issuing a currency in its area. It can levy
taxes and impositions, and exempt at will certain individuals or groups from
payment. Furthermore, the sovereign isn’t bound by the laws it makes. And it
isn’t responsible for the consequences to anyone of what it does (also known as
“the king can do no wrong.”)<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Government<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The conventional definition of government is something like
“a group of people with the authority to govern a country or state.” Where they
get that authority from, is not spelled out. But today, at the national level, it
is usually through a claim to Bodin’s sovereignty. At the international level,
agendas are often legitimized by claiming that some consortium of sovereign
nations have agreed to them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Since I reject this idea of sovereignty in favour of the
moral equality of all individuals, I regard government, like politics, as a
pejorative. That is why I use a different word, “governance,” to describe my
proposed replacement for it.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The public good<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The public good is often defined as something like “the
benefit or well-being of the public.” But what, exactly, constitutes the
well-being of this “public?” Political policies, which some consider desirable
and even necessary for the public good, may well be anathema to others. Green
policies are a case in point, as is any form of re-distributory or confiscatory
taxation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Myself, I follow John Locke’s definition of the public good:
“the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules
it can be provided for.” [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
I also interpret it to mean “the good of every individual in that group of
people, real wrongdoers excepted.”<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The social contract<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The “social contract” is a fiction, invented by Thomas
Hobbes in the 17<sup>th</sup> century, and developed and given its name by
Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18<sup>th</sup>. The nub of the idea is that, at
some time in the past, a group of people (or, at least, a majority of them)
consented to be ruled over despotically by an absolute sovereign. They committed
to each other, that they authorized and approved whatever the sovereign chose
to do. Moreover, once the system has been set up, there is no possibility of
changing it, or of escape from it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Myself, I find this social contract narrative simply absurd.
Even if my ancestors might have subscribed to such a thing (and, as far as I
know, they didn’t), I as an individual have never agreed to any social
contract! Where is my signature on any such damn thing? Moreover, where are the
statements of the benefits I am supposed to get from it, and the procedures for
me to get justice and redress if the government party fails to deliver?<o:p></o:p></p><h3>“Society” and the implied social contract<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The social contract fiction has led to an idea that there is
something called “Society” in the singular, to which everyone in a particular
area – such as the territory claimed by a state – belongs, whether they want to
or not. According to this narrative, all of us have agreed to an implied
contract, that makes us part of this “Society,” and thus subjects of a
Hobbesian sovereign. This, in turn, makes us subject to a political government,
and to the decrees of its leaders and officials for the time being.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Myself, I reject this idea of “Society” in the singular.
This is because, for me, all societies must be voluntary, and this thing they
call “Society” is not voluntary. My position is supported by the UN Declaration
of Human Rights, Article 20(2): “No one may be compelled to belong to an
association.” A succinct way to put my position is: There is no such thing as “society”
in the singular. There are only societies.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I reject derived ideas like “social justice” and “social
security,” too. And I reject all political ideologies that depend on the idea.
Such as socialism, where “society” is supposed to own the means of economic
production. Communism, where “society” owns everything, and all resources are
controlled and allocated by the political state. And fascism, which
subordinates the interests of individuals to “society” and to the nation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I also reject any implication that I have ever agreed to be
part of a <i>political</i> society (other than political parties I joined
voluntarily.) Having not voted in a UK general or local election since 1987, I
have never signed up to be governed by any cabal of politicians now in
existence. Let alone the current bunch of evil, corrupt Tory parasites and
pests. Therefore, no bunch of politicians has, or ever has had, any right to tell
me how to live, to drain me, or to harm or inconvenience me.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Where we are today<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">Next, I will provide a brief summary of some of the evidence
I put forward in the fourth essay.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Failure of the political system<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The political system, under which we suffer today, has
failed. The system and the political governments it spawns are no longer legitimate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">At the same time, other ties that have bound people
together in the past have also weakened. Blood ties, linguistic and cultural
ties, religious ties, ties of geographical proximity, have all lost power in
recent decades. Right now, there is virtually nothing left that can bind people
with different sets of interests and desires together into any common political
cause.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Failure of government<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Government as an institution, too, has failed at all levels.
Instead of defending us, as they ought to, against the parasites that seek to
drain us and the pests that seek to harm us, governments have been taken over
by those same criminal parasites and pests.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Governments, whether local, national, regional or wannabe
global, have turned into rapacious machines, that exploit and impoverish us, rule
over us against our interests, harass us, and routinely violate our human
rights and freedoms. They are even going so far as to seek to destroy our human
industrial civilization, on the excuse of a non-existent climate crisis. And
they are increasingly denying us one of the most fundamental human rights of
all, freedom of speech, by “cancelling” anyone whose views go against
politically correct orthodoxy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The Partygate scandal, and its aftermath, have shown us that
those in government in the UK today have absolutely zero respect for the rule
of law, or for equality before the law. They want one law for themselves, and
another, far more restrictive, law for the rest of us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Governments also seem to have awarded themselves a
“meddler’s charter,” that allows them to stalk us and film us wherever we go,
and to interfere in our lives on even the tiniest excuse. Government is coming
to feel, more and more, like a hostile occupying force among us. And trust and
respect between people and the governments that are supposed to serve them have
been lost, in both directions.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Failure of democracy<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The sham called democracy, which is supposed to enable
ordinary people to set the direction and tone of government, and to have a full
and fair say in what policies it will adopt, has failed, too.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">A vote is completely useless, unless there is someone who
both is worth voting for and has a decent chance of being elected into power.
But almost no-one in any of the mainstream political parties is worth voting
for. The great majority of politicians are dishonest and duplicitous, if not
also selfish and hypocritical. Yet, too many – <i>far</i> too many – people
continue to vote for them. As shown in Uxbridge. So, far from binding people
together, democracy has become a divisive force, and the chasms between people
of differing political views grow ever wider and deeper.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Meanwhile, the supposedly democratic “mother of parliaments”
has turned into a “uniparty.” In effect, a one-party state. Which, far from serving
the governed, spends its time creating problems for ordinary people, while
feathering the nests of its members and their cronies.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Failure of representation<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Our so-called “representatives,” for the most part, fail
even to try to represent us, to fight on our behalf <i>our</i> corner among all
the vested interests that scrap for power and control over us. And many of them
actively support pernicious policies, such as the green agenda, heavy taxation,
meddling in our lives, and violations of our rights and freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">“My” MP, for example, is a high-tax-and-spend, pro-IR35, pro-green-agenda,
establishment Tory. He usually ignores my views altogether. And none of my
local “representatives” shares anything like my views on environmental matters
– views which are based, not on a political position, but on many years of
study of the evidence. Nor have I seen anything to suggest that any of them agree
even slightly with my individualist views on human rights and freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>A moral panic<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoBodyText">I am coming to see that what we are suffering under today
has many of the characteristics of what is known as a “moral panic.” People the
panic-mongers don’t like are – quite arbitrarily – treated as if we were a
“threat to society.” We are attacked if we don’t follow the political
correctness of the day – as Nigel Farage recently found out. We are attacked if
we want to be independent – as with the witch-hunts against car drivers and
one-man businesses. We are attacked if we disbelieve the party line, and we use
our reason to search honestly for the facts. We are attacked if we try to speak
the truth as we see it – as with those who dispute the green or COVID narratives.
We are attacked if we try to protest against bad and unjust laws.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Meanwhile, the mainstream media fan the flames of panic as
hard as they can. And the establishment and their “experts” pontificate over
what to do about the problems, real or imagined, and rush to put forward
“solutions” that will do the maximum damage to those they hate. All this is
uncomfortably reminiscent of the Inquisitions and witch-hunts of the 16<sup>th</sup>
and 17<sup>th</sup> centuries.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Globalism and internationalism<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">On top of all this, corporate, globalist and
internationalist élites, unelected and unaccountable, have been expanding their
powers. They are seeking, with the active co-operation of many national
politicians, to transform the world’s political and financial systems into a
top-down tyranny, with themselves and their cronies at the top, and us human
beings at the bottom. As part of their vision, they want to “transform
societies” into something that is quite the opposite of any civilization worth
the name. And they want to “nudge” and “transform” us human beings into
something quite foreign to humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Meanwhile, advisors and influencers, technocrats and
“experts,” green, religious or “woke” (in the sense used by political conservatives)
maniacs, financial and big-business élites, academics and activists, and some
that are several of the above fall over each other to take as much as they can
from us, and to do us as much harm as they can. And the mainstream media generally
either ignore, or savage, anyone whose point of view is other than the politically
correct orthodoxy of the day.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>How our enemies are behaving towards us<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoBodyText">Our enemies, the politicals, the parasites and pests, are
seeking today to trash our human industrial civilization. They seek to suppress
our economy, our prosperity, our rights and our freedoms. They seek to suppress
our human spirit, and to lower our confidence in ourselves. They seek to
suppress our rational thinking, to silence truth, and to swamp us with their
narratives of lies, spin and hype. And they seek to suppress and belittle our
core humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">They behave towards us like arrogant psychopaths. Far from
respecting our human rights and dignity, they treat us as if we were mere
animals, or unfeeling objects, or even just numbers in a database. In my most
cynical moments, I think they just want to reduce us to numbers (and perhaps ID
scans) in a database, and have done with us. They are working, both at the
level of individual governments and of global organizations, to establish
themselves as dictatorial rulers over us, to reduce us to poverty and
impotence, and to trash the quality (and maybe even the quantity!) our lives.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Neither parasites nor pests are fit to be invited into any
community of human beings worth the name. They are traitors to human
civilization, and to the human species. They deserve to be kicked out of human
civilization, and denied all its benefits.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Where we want to aim for<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">Before putting forward my ideas for solutions to our
problems, I feel the need to summarize here some key ideas of my ethical and
political philosophy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">These will include my best proposals so far for the
destinations, towards which we should be steering. I see these objectives as
twofold. First, a new code of law, based on human nature and independent of
culture. I dub this the Convivial Code. And second, a new system of governance,
which I call “just governance.”<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Bottom-up thinking and construction<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Bottom-up thinking is a way of building ideas from what is
already known, or is reasonably hypothesized as being consistent with the
evidence. And something which is constructed bottom-up is created from
components which are already in existence, and themselves supported from below.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The ideas of my philosophy are put together in a bottom-up
way. For example, we use our experience of reality to find out facts. We use
our faculty of reason to assemble them into percepts and concepts, and thence
into knowledge. We use our ethical sense, based on our knowledge, to judge what
is right and wrong for us to do. On top of these judgements, we build our ideas
of how best to organize groups of human beings, from the individual up, for
maximum benefit to all. And on top of all those, we go about our business of
living!<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Bottom-up versus top-down organization<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I make a strong contrast between bottom-up and top-down organization.
A top-down organization is a system in which those at the bottom or periphery
are commanded and controlled by those at the top or centre. All today’s
political systems, even democracies, are built on top-down lines.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In a top-down system, a vision or agenda, held by those in
power, dictates social and political organization. (Probably the largest single
element in this vision, is that those in power want to remain in power.) This
enables the making of policies and laws, that often override ethics, and go
against human nature. Moreover, top-down politics requires narratives and
propaganda to hold it together. And at the lowest level, the system can only be
maintained by a combination of faith held by believers, and force against
unbelievers.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Turning our world the right way up<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">It is fair, I think, to say that we human beings, the
economic species, flourish and prosper best in a world built on bottom-up
principles. Whereas the political species flourish in top-down systems, such as
we suffer under today.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In order to vanquish the political species and fulfil our
potential, therefore, we must move the organizations of human communities on
our planet from top-down oriented to bottom-up oriented. As I like to put it,
we need to turn our world the right way up.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Identity determines morality principle<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">What I call the “identity determines morality” principle is
the idea that <i>right and wrong behaviours for a species of sentient beings
are determined by the nature of the species</i>. I fully subscribe to this
principle. It applies both to human beings and to animals.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Thus, any species of sentient beings has its own “natural
law,” which determines what is right and wrong for any member of the species to
do. Right and wrong for a giraffe, for example, are different from right and
wrong for a lion. A giraffe naturally picks fruit and leaves off the tops of
tall trees. Whereas a lion naturally chases, kills and eats animals like zebra.
If they tried to swap behaviours, both would go hungry, and many lions would
die through falling out of trees.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">This principle lies at the root of my diagnosis that human
beings and politicals have become separate species. For, as I indicated above,
our behaviours are very different. Far more so than you usually find between honest,
ordinary human beings from different cultures. And the fact that the behaviours
are so different, tells us that the species are different.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Ethical equality principle<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The ethical equality principle is a direct consequence of
identity determining morality. For what is right and wrong for any human being
to do is determined by the nature of humanity; what John Locke called the “law
of Nature,” and many others have called natural law.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I put the principle as follows: <i>What is right for one to
do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa</i>.
Thus, what is naturally right (or wrong) for each human individual to do, is
the same for all human individuals.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Honesty and integrity<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The word “honesty” has many meanings. For example, seeking
and telling truth, straightforwardness, trustworthiness. But my own definition
is all of the above, and more. <i>Honesty is being true to your nature</i>.
Honesty is behaving as is natural for a human being.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Integrity, as well as meaning “the attribute of being
undivided,” is often seen as “a quality of being honest and having strong moral
principles.” In my take, integrity is the product of honesty. Integrity
constitutes the observable behaviours, which come from being true to your
nature, and behaving as a human being.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Rights and obligations<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Rights, often called human rights, are benefits which accrue
to human individuals by virtue of being human. That is, by behaving as is
natural for human beings.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Lists of rights have been put forward in many documents over
the centuries. Such as Magna Carta of 1215, the 1689 English Bill of Rights,
the 1791 US Bill of Rights and the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human
Rights. None of these lists is anywhere near perfect, and all of them are
incomplete.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Rights, such as property or privacy, back-to-back with
obligations, such as not to steal, or not to intrude into people’s lives
without good reason. You enjoy rights, when those around you keep to their side
of the deal, the corresponding obligations.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In my take, rights divide into three types. First,
fundamental rights. These result from moral prohibitions – obligations to
refrain from doing something, which apply to everyone – of the form “Do not...”
followed by something bad. Second, rights of non-impedance. These rights are
often also called freedoms. These result from more nuanced moral prohibitions,
of the form: “Do not put any obstacle in the way of...” followed by something
good. And third, procedural rights, such as the presumption of innocence until
proven guilty, which must guide the procedures used in confrontational
situations. And, most of all, must be fully respected by everyone in governance
at any level.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">There are also putative rights, such as “social security,”
which are not really rights. I refer to these as “misguided rights.” But often,
they can be validly replaced by rights of non-impedance. For example, social
security can be replaced by a right not to be impeded from insuring against, or
associating with others for mutual protection against, economic hardship.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Rights are earned and respect for rights principles<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">In my view, rights are not granted by some government, deity
or other external party. For me, human rights are <i>earned</i>. You earn your
own rights, by respecting the equal rights of others around you. And this
respect for others’ rights is built into the nature of any human being worth
the name.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Of course, when you were born, you had already “earned”
these rights in principle, because you had not harmed, or tried to harm, any
other individual. But you must continue to respect others’ rights, in order to
retain and to expand your own rights.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The flip side of rights being earned is that by acting as is
natural for a human being, and respecting others’ rights, you acquire the reasonable
expectation that others will respect your equal rights. If you respect others’
rights, your own rights ought to be sacrosanct. I put these two principles together
as: <i>Human beings have human rights, and human rights are for human beings</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Conviviality<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">A human individual, who behaves as is natural for a human
being, makes himself or herself <i>convivial</i>. (I have borrowed this word
from Belgian natural law philosopher Frank van Dun.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">“Convivial” means “living together,” and often means living
together <i>well</i>. In my take, convivial also means “fit to be lived with.”
And the quality of conviviality is shared by those who behave convivially.
Conviviality is achieved by behaving honestly and with integrity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I have re-stated Aristotle’s infamous “Man is by nature a
political animal” as: <i>Humans are by nature convivial animals</i>. It is our
nature, not just to live together, but to live together for mutual benefit.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The Convivial Code<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">It follows from the ethical equality principle that for
any species of sentient beings there must exist an ethical code of conduct,
encapsulating the behaviours which are right (and, implicitly or explicitly, the
behaviours which are wrong) for members of that species. In particular, such a
code must exist for human beings. I call this code the <i>Convivial Code</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The Code encapsulates (or more accurately, will encapsulate)
a minimum set of standards of behaviour for human beings worth the name. It
will be a touchstone for humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Respect for the equal rights of other human beings will be a
very significant part of the Code. But it will also include other elements. I
gave an account of how the Code might be constructed in the third essay of this
set.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">To give a flavour of what the Code is likely to contain, I
will repeat here John Locke’s description of the natural law for human beings:
“Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life,
health, liberty or possessions.” [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
And my best shot to date at an outline of the Code: “Be peaceful. Seek the
facts, and tell the truth. Be honest. Strive always to behave with justice,
integrity and good faith. Be tolerant of those who are tolerant towards you.
Respect the rights and freedoms of those who respect your equal rights and
freedoms. Don’t interfere in other people’s business without a very good,
objective reason. And take responsibility for the effects of your voluntary
actions on others.” To which, I will now add: Practise what you preach.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The Code will be flexible enough to allow individuals and
voluntary societies, by mutual agreement, to add to, vary or set aside some of
its provisions in regard to their dealings with each other. But it will apply in
full, and unmodified, to dealings between those who have not entered into any
such agreement. It will also allow that, in certain exceptional circumstances
such as acting in self-defence or in defence of others, it may be permissible
to break some of its provisions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">One way in which the Code will differ from systems of
political laws, is that the Code will be essentially timeless. Once set up, it needs
no legislative. Changes only become necessary when circumstances occur which
have not been envisaged before, or human nature itself changes, or new
knowledge becomes available about what it is. And these events are rare.
Because of this, absent such events, the Code will be applicable
retrospectively.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The convivial community<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The <i>convivial community</i> is the community of all those
who choose to behave up to the standards which are natural for human beings.
What binds this community together is a shared willingness to behave
convivially.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I equate this with the community, of which John Locke said [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]:
“by which law [the law of Nature], common to them all, he and all the rest of
mankind are one community, make up one society distinct from all other
creatures. And were it not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate
men, there would be no need of any other, no necessity that men should separate
from this great and natural community, and associate into lesser combinations.”<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Disconviviality<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Those that fail to keep to the Convivial Code, particularly
if their failures are gross or persistent, I call <i>disconvivial</i>
individuals. <i>Disconviviality</i> is the quality of being disconvivial.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Disconvivial individuals are equivalent, in the realm of
conviviality, to criminals today. And, as John Locke identified, to the degenerates
(literally meaning “no longer of their kind”), whose “corruption and
viciousness” broke apart the convivial community in the first place.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Judgement by behaviour principle<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Judgement by behaviour is an important adjunct to the
principles of ethical equality, honesty and respect for rights. It represents a
practice of judging individuals by examining how they behave, rather than by things
outside the individual’s control, such as race, birthplace, skin colour, social
class or received religion. Thus, you should judge people by their actions.
And, of course, their motivations for doing what they do, as far as you can
work them out.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I put this as: It isn’t who someone is that matters, only
what they do. Or, more succinctly: <i>Human is as human does</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Community versus society<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Before I go further, I must explain the distinction I make
between a <i>community</i> and a <i>society</i>. A <i>community</i> is a group
of people, bound together by some shared characteristic; but not necessarily by
anything more. A <i>society</i>, on the other hand, is a group of people who
have agreed to join together in a common cause.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">A society has what Jean-Jacques Rousseau called a “general
will,” the will of the members as a whole. Provided, of course, that those, who
cease to agree with the objectives or the conduct of the society, can freely
leave the society. A community, on the other hand, has no such thing. And thus,
it does not exist as a collective, only as a group of individuals.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The people who reside in a particular geographical area, for
example, are bound together into a community by their common place of
residence. But they are not a society, because there is no common cause, in
which they have all agreed to join.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Voluntary society principle<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The voluntary society principle is the first principle of
organizing a civilization, as opposed to a political government. I state it as:
<i>All societies must be voluntary</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">A major consequence of this is that because those who live
in a particular geographical area are only a community, they cannot be assumed
to support or to accept any particular political ideology. Therefore, they
ought not to be subjected to any political government. This principle is the
root of my disagreement with the ideas of the social contract and “Society” in
the singular.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Common-sense justice principle<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The second principle of organizing a civilization is
common-sense justice. I state it as follows: <i>Every individual deserves to be
treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or
she treats others</i>. Thus, common-sense justice is individual justice.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">What this means, from the individual’s point of view, is
that you deserve to be treated as you treat others. If you treat others well,
you deserve to be treated correspondingly well by others. And if you treat
others badly, you deserve to be treated correspondingly badly. What could be
more common-sense than that?<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Maximum freedom principle<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Maximum freedom is the third principle of civilization. It
allows maximum freedom of choice and action for everyone, consistent with
living in a civilized community. I have expressed this as: <i>Except where
countermanded by justice, the Convivial Code or respect for rights, every
individual is free to choose and act as he or she wishes</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Just governance<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Just governance is my design for a new form of governance to
supersede the political state. I see its remit as to enable people to live
together in an environment of peace and tranquillity, common-sense justice, and
maximum rights and freedom for every individual. In particular, it will
implement the primary purpose of government, as it was described by John Locke
[<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]:
“The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and
putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Just governance will govern communities of individuals, in
much the same way as a referee governs a football match. It will also
adjudicate as needed on the relationships between those individuals, the
voluntary societies to which they belong, and other individuals and societies
they interact with.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It will be bottom-up and de-politicized. Its structure will
be like a network, not a hierarchy. And its authority will come from the
common-sense nature of its principles, and its objectivity, impartiality,
honesty and good faith.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In the third essay of this set, I gave in a few thousand
words an outline of just governance, and of a possible structure for
implementing it.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Civilization<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Civilization is bottom-up social organization. As opposed to
politics, which is a means of top-down social organization.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Civilization is the natural product of de-politicized
systems of governance, such as my “just governance.” It is the environment, in
which we human beings worth the name can best do what is natural for us to do:
live our lives well and fulfil ourselves. And, in the process, make ourselves
prosperous and happy.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>How to make a start on fixing the problems<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">With the background set, I will now take a turn towards a
more radical direction.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Consider a situation, in which many human beings in a
particular geographical territory feel the need to, in John Locke’s words [<!--[if supportFields]><sup><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span> NOTEREF _Ref138072560 \h <span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>\* MERGEFORMAT <span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span></sup><![endif]--><sup>2<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:data>08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F005200650066003100330038003000370032003500360030000000</w:data>
</xml><![endif]--></sup><!--[if supportFields]><sup><span style='mso-element:
field-end'></span></sup><![endif]-->]: “rouse themselves, and endeavour to put
the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government
was at first erected.” We are certainly
in that situation right now! Almost everyone I talk to is completely fed up
with what is being done to them. And they see no prospect of any improvement, regardless
of what political party is in power.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In what follows, I shall give some ideas on how the problems
we human beings suffer under today might be fixed, once we have the power to do
that. Because the ideas here are provisional, I shall write much of these
sections using the conditional tense, “would.”<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The first step<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">First, a question. What kind of rule would people, who have
been suffering for decades under the kind of bad politics that has been rife in
the UK and other Western countries, choose to replace all the bad politics by,
as a first step towards a better system?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">A big problem with getting rid of a corrupt governmental system,
like a political state, is that if you try to replace the system immediately by
an as yet untried new way, the teething troubles would likely be very serious,
and could damage the credibility of the new way. But if you simply abolish the
system, you are left, in essence, with anarchy. And you have lost the authority
you need to make the parasites and pests, that mis-used government power either
directly or indirectly, compensate the victims of their predations and their bad
politics. Yet, if you leave the system in place without changing its power
basis and removing its former establishment, you will face a vicious backlash
from that establishment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Many prospective solutions to our ills, therefore, are “dead
in the water” before even being tried. Simply to replace in power one mainstream
political party by another is, even at best, to change the label on government without
significantly changing its substance or style. And it would not get rid of
those parts of the establishment, such as the “civil service” bureaucracy,
whose power does not depend on which party is in charge for the moment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, the problems with the sham “democracy,” under
which we suffer, run far deeper than just which political faction is in power.
Those who want, not one kind of politics rather than another, but less politics
or none at all, are completely unrepresented.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Further, even when run completely fairly and honestly,
democracy is a majoritarian system. But, as Mahatma Gandhi told us: “In matters
of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.” And a lot of political
decisions come down, ultimately, to matters of conscience: to deciding, in a
particular instance, what is right and what is wrong.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Beyond this, any new system in a geographical territory would
have to have, at the very least, self-determination for the people there. It could
not allow any interference by parties outside the area, such as the European
Union (EU), United Nations (UN), World Economic Forum (WEF) or World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Such interference is completely
incompatible with the Enlightenment ideal of government for the benefit of,
with the consent of, and accountable to, the people who inhabit the territory.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">There is one solution, which I think could be ultimately successful,
and yet would wind down the state gently enough to allow time to bring people to
confidence in the system which will replace it. That solution is… a temporary,
enlightened monarchy. Or, otherwise put, a return to Plato’s ideal of a
philosopher-king. Someone with enough philosophical <i>nous</i> to understand
the issues which need to be addressed, and yet enough ability to get things done
to lay plans for, and set in motion, the actions which need to be taken.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Such a solution would, of course, require strong support
from the ordinary people in the territory; those who have “roused themselves”
to pick a new pair of hands to govern them. In return, the incumbent (who, for
the sake of grammatical simplicity, I will assume to be male) would have to
undertake to use his temporary state powers only for the benefit of the people
who put him there. He would be, at the same time, both an absolute monarch and
a populist!<o:p></o:p></p><h3>If I ruled the land…<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Philosopher-kings are, like unicorns and honest politicians,
very rare and hard-to-find beasts, usually only seen on pub signs. But in the
real world, you can try to create them in two ways. One, by picking a king and
teaching him the philosophy appropriate to the job he is needed to do. The
other, by finding a philosopher with the right kind of ideas, and making him
king.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">History shows that the first approach does not work. Even
the most enlightened (and even Enlightened) despots, like Catherine the Great,
still took part in all kinds of political shenanigans, many of which went
against the interests of their people. As to Charlie the current “king” of the
“Disunited Wasteland” as I will dub it, he is a UN and WEF henchman. The second
approach seems more promising. But the only historical example I could find was
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, and even he wasn’t anywhere near perfect.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">How such a candidate might be picked is an interesting
question, and one I prefer to skip over. I would certainly not want to put
myself forward as a candidate, however “uniquely qualified” for the job I might
be. For to become a public figure really isn’t my style. However, if needs were
to must, and there was no-one else suitable, I suppose I would feel obliged to
hold my nose and get the job done.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Day One<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">So, what would I do if, perchance, I was installed with
absolute, if temporary, monarchical power over the people in some territory?
Which might (or might not) be all, or some part of, the area currently claimed
by the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?” Again, for
simplicity, I will assume that my “realm” would consist of all of this area.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Right from day one, I’d make it absolutely clear what I saw
myself as being there to do. My job would be to run down the political state,
to the point where it would be safe to abolish it, and to replace it by a new, honest
system of governance, which acts for the benefit of all human beings worth the
name in the territory. That system might, perhaps, be based on my “just
governance” proposals. But I would always be open to suggestions from others,
to see if they might work better in practice than my own ideas.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>My objectives<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">My objectives, in a nutshell, would be: To get rid of politics,
bad policies and bad politicians. Hugely to reduce the size of government, and
the scope of what it does. To withdraw from all international organizations and
agreements, that go against the interests of the human beings in the territory.
To repeal all bad laws, that are a drain on or a disbenefit to human beings. To
end the practises that have enabled parasites and pests to make gains at the expense
of human beings, and to hold those parasites and pests accountable for what
they have done. To move the laws of the territory closer and closer to the
natural law for human beings, as I paraphrased it in the section on natural law
above. And to move more and more towards a system of governance, whose
functions are restricted, as far as possible, to delivering peace and justice.
And in which everyone is treated, as far as practicable, as he or she treats
others.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In terms of day-to-day governance, I would see myself primarily
as like a referee in a football match. I would see my main jobs in that role as
being to keep the “game of life” within the territory flowing, and to prevent
those that do, or seek to do, real harms to others from getting away with their
crimes.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>My focus<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">My primary focus at the outset would be to undo all bad
political policies, and to hugely improve the honesty, impartiality,
objectivity and justice of everything my governance does.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">As part of this, I would aim to get rid of all restrictions
on the economy. I would establish sane and sensible policies on energy and the environment.
I would get rid of re-distributory and confiscatory taxation. I would aim to
move closer and closer to the ideal that what each individual pays for
governance should be in direct proportion to the benefit that he or she gets
from it. And I would set in motion programmes to eliminate all dishonesty and corruption
from governance, and to make the parasites and pests provide full compensation
to the human beings they drained, or harmed, or both.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>How I would begin<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Here is how I would start on my quest for a new and better
world for all human beings.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would publicly assert the self-determination and
independence of the territory and its governance from all parties outside the
territory. I would affirm by oath that my governance will act for the public
good, and only for the public good, of the people it governs. That is, the good
of every individual among the governed, real wrongdoers excepted. I would
affirm that my governance will seek, with all its might, to identify the
political parasites and pests, to make them compensate their victims, and to
punish them as appropriate; all in accord with the ideal of common-sense
justice. And I would affirm that my governance will not attack, or intentionally
harm, anyone, either inside or outside the territory, unless they seek to
attack or to harm it or the people it serves.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also publicly assert that the interests of human
beings must always come ahead of the interests of other species, if they are in
conflict. I would assert that for a human being, to live in harmony with nature
is to live in harmony with <i>human</i> nature. And that is: To build
civilizations, to conduct honest business and trade, and to take control of our
surroundings. As I put it three decades ago: “Man must conquer nature, not let
nature conker Man.”<o:p></o:p></p><h3>My approach to politics and religion<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would never seek to impose any political policy, or political
or religious orthodoxy, for its own sake. I would never seek to impose any
particular lifestyle on anyone. I would not put obstacles in the way of those
who want to live different lifestyles from others, unless what they are doing objectively
and provably harms someone else. I would let socialists live in socialist
communes if they wish, greens in green communes, Christians in Christian communes,
atheists in atheist communes, capitalists in capitalist communes, and so forth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">That said, I would ban all political parties in the
territory, with immediate effect, on the grounds that no-one has any right to
enforce any political policies or ideology on anyone. I would be an <i>apolitical</i>
king. Or, even, an <i>anti-political</i> one.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also disestablish the Church of England, and
disengage all links between governance and religion. But I would not put restrictions
on any religious community, unless they try to foist their religion on others, or
try by force or threats to stop those who wish to leave them.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Immediate institutional reforms<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would retain the House of Commons as an elected body, but
would mandate a fresh general election, in which all candidates must be
Independents.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The role of MPs would no longer be to debate or set policies,
but to be truly representatives of the people who live in their areas. They
would sample opinion in their constituencies, and report to me and my advisors
what their people think about what is happening, and how it could be improved.
They could also act as an advisory body on the repeal programmes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also mandate fresh local elections, with all
candidates required to be Independents. These would be held a few months after
the Commons election. County and local councillors would perform a similar
function to MPs, but restricted to matters local to their areas. I would demand
that all councils, and all councillors, leave and publicly reject political pressure
groups such as C40 and UK 100.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would encourage judges to continue using common-law
precedents in cases they judge. I would also encourage them to consider the
rights and wrongs in all cases, and not to enforce any political “law” that is inconsistent
with the natural law for human beings. As John Locke told us, man-made laws are
“only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature.” [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would abolish the House of Lords, and annul the titles of all
its members with political backgrounds. But I would allow honest judges and
other non-politicized peers to retain their titles. And I would appoint some of
the most honest, capable, apolitical peers to senior positions in a new Ethical
Audit Office, to become responsible for quality control and auditing on
governance at all levels.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also set in motion a plan to review all honoured titles,
and annul all knighthoods and other titles that had been awarded for political
“service.” I would never create any new honours myself.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would abolish the politicized “supreme court,” a creation
of Tony Blair, and would replace it by a court (which might include some of the
same judges) operating according to the rules used prior to 2009, with due
allowance for the House of Lords no longer existing.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would promulgate my objectives (as above) and my proposed
programmes (as I will describe below), and solicit feedback from the people via
their MPs and local representatives.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>My approach to the job<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would pick my own team of trusted advisers. The team would
be small enough to be manageable, but large enough to provide a variety of
different skills and points of view. Within this, there would be a core of my
closest aides, covering at least home affairs and justice, foreign affairs and
defence, economic affairs and quality control.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The team would not include anyone with a background in
politics. Many of my advisors, I expect, would be current or former business
people. A few would be specialists in relevant academic or scientific areas. Or
even, perhaps, economists of a low-tax, free-market bent. But I would first need
to make myself certain of their honesty before appointing any of these.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">My own lifestyle would be comfortable, cosseted and serviced,
but not opulent or at all showy. Certainly not royal in any way. Comparable,
perhaps, with the lifestyles of the fellows of an Oxford or Cambridge college. For
both business and leisure, I would travel by chauffeured car, choosing not to
drive because of my age. I’d fly on scheduled airlines, but not by private jet
or the Royal Air Force. I would not travel often outside the territory. And
when I did, it would be mostly for friendly conferences with other leaders in
similar situations to my own.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would work whatever hours I felt were both necessary to
get the job done and healthy for me. I would eat and drink as I find best for
my health and sanity. I would take as remuneration an amount sufficient to live
in enough ease and comfort to do the job to the best of my abilities, and to
secure my financial future for the rest of my life. But no more. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would recruit trusted intermediaries to do those parts of
the work that are outside my skill set, such as dealing with the press, and reacting
to emergencies in the short term.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would rarely appear in public, and never so in my official
capacity. I would not throw lavish parties. Though I surely would party from
time to time with my friends and advisors! And I might choose to invite anyone,
whose ideas I find interesting, to fill me in on their thinking, over a few
glasses of whatever takes our respective fancies.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">To keep people informed, I would issue a progress report
each month for everyone in the territory. It would be available on-line, in both
document and video formats.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>The first round of reforms<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">Having made such a start, I would then unleash my first
round of reforms.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Cultural changes in governance<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would quickly set in motion several significant cultural and
philosophical changes in the way my governance works.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would make it plain that governance does not exist for its
own sake. It exists only for the benefit of those who pay for it. And of <i>all</i>
those who pay for it, real wrongdoers excepted. If it fails to deliver a nett benefit
to the human beings it governs – to every single one of them – then it is
failing in its task. And any of its employees, who fail to do their part in
delivering a nett benefit to the governed, are failing in their own tasks, and
so liable to disciplinary action.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would mandate equality before the law. I would make it
plain that no-one in governance has any kind of ethical privileges over the
people they are supposed to be serving. What is right for one to do in a
situation, is right for another to do in a similar situation, and <i>vice versa</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would require that everyone in my governance must always
be totally honest towards the people for whose benefit they are supposed to be
acting. Any intentional dishonesty towards those people would be a dismissal
offence, with cancellation of pension. Such dishonesties would include lying to
or misleading the people, or behaving arrogantly or unreasonably towards them,
or knowingly acting – in whatever way – against their interests.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Further, everyone in governance must always respect the
human rights and dignity of those they are supposed to be serving. The
perpetrators of dishonesty or violations of rights would also be required to
compensate those they wronged. This rule could – and would – be applied to
actions in the past, just as much as those in the present and the future.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The Ethical Audit Office would be responsible for
investigating and dealing with all such cases, as part of their remit to build a
system of formal Honesty Audits for the future.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would order an immediate, ethically based review of the
surveillance, to which we are subjected. This would cover surveillance of
people, of vehicles, and of communications of all kinds, by both government and
non-government actors. In the meantime, I would require government to cease all
routine surveillance of people going about their daily lives, unless there is
reasonable suspicion that they have done, are doing or are planning to do some
real crime.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would ditch the perverted form of the precautionary
principle, that has encouraged governments to act against a perceived risk even
if that risk is not quantified. Thus, I would end the culture of over-caution
and over-safety, that has resulted from this perversion. I would revert to the precautionary
principle in its true form: “Look before you leap,” or even “First, do no
harm.” If the effectiveness or cost-benefit of taking action against a perceived
risk is unclear, governance must <i>not</i> take precipitate action. Rather, it
must work to quantify costs versus benefits more accurately.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would mandate that objective risk-benefit analysis must be
done on all governance projects which either are intended to mitigate risks, or
might cause risks due to their effects or side-effects. This would include all
projects in progress, that have not already had such an analysis done. All
analyses must be objective, unbiased and quantitative. It will not be
acceptable to use a “post-normal” approach, or finger-in-the-air methods such
as “expert elicitation.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would mandate that objective cost versus benefit analysis must
be done on all governance projects of any significant size. The analysis should
be done from the point of view of the people who are expected to pay for it, or
are or will be affected by it either positively or negatively. As with risk
analyses, these must be objective, unbiased and quantitative.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Further, projects in progress must be regularly audited for
costs versus benefits, and curative action taken if necessary. And as required
by the “First, do no harm” principle, no project may proceed if it causes
unjust harms to any particular kinds of individuals or groups of people.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would require that governance must always allow maximum
freedom of choice for everyone. In particular, it must never force on to people
decisions of a “crossing the Rubicon” nature; it must never mandate the removal
of backwards compatibility. Those who wish to continue to employ tried and
trusted ways, such as using cash or cheques, or refusing to have a mobile
phone, must be allowed to do so, for life if they wish. And neither governance nor
anyone else may discriminate against them because of this. Further, governance
must always allow people the option to back out of any new technology they feel
is not working in their interests, and to return to using older methods.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Where so recommended by my Ethical Audit Office, I would
disband any unit of government whose behaviour is incompatible with the culture
I have outlined above, and dismiss its staff.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Withdrawing from international bodies and agreements<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">I would swiftly withdraw the territory from the United
Nations. This would be on the grounds that the UN has been failing in, and in
some instances is now failing even to pursue, its missions. As I documented in
the second essay of this set, the UN has failed, and is still failing, to “save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And since the 1970s at least, it
has done little if anything to help us to “regain faith in fundamental human
rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, as to promoting “better standards of life in
larger freedom,” in recent decades our freedoms and standard of living have been
trashed. And much of this has resulted from green policies that have been, and
still are being, driven by the UN. These are very serious breaches of the UN’s stated
purposes. And those breaches ought to provide to any leader in any territory the
unquestioned right to remove his territory from the UN.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would close down any UN agencies operating in the
territory, and expel all their employees that are foreign nationals. I would
withdraw from all UN organizations and projects, other than pre-existing
peacekeeping operations such as in Cyprus, and perhaps the work of the High
Commissioner for Refugees. I would withdraw from the “2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.” I would withdraw from the 2015 Paris agreement, the
1992 Rio agreements, the IPCC and all other environmental projects in which the
UN is or has been involved.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would withdraw from the WHO and all its projects. The WHO,
despite its good-sounding name of World Health Organization, is one of the most
actively destructive of the UN’s agencies. Its insatiable, ongoing drive to
force air pollution down to levels so low that they cannot be met in a free
economy, has been a significant cause of some of the problems we currently
face. It has recently gone over the top on “climate change,” claiming it causes
1.4 million excess deaths per year in Europe; a claim not supported by any
evidence at all. Its performance over the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in
its early stages, was atrocious. Yet it is demanding total, global control over
the handling of any future pandemics! All this said, however, my governance
would continue to share relevant health data with other countries as and when
they need it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would sever all remaining links with the European Union. I
would respect fair and just agreements which have already been made with the
EU, but not any one-sided “agreements” that were made without reference to the
views of the persons in the territory.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would be happy to meet leaders of individual European
countries, to see how the interests of our people could best be advanced on
both sides. These countries would include Ireland.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would not withdraw the territory from the Council of
Europe. I would consider decisions of the European Court of Human Rights to be
advisory only. But I would not in practice go against them, as long as they are
made with full, proper regard to human rights and freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In the longer term, I would seek to incorporate the best of
the European Convention and the UN Declaration, together with earlier lists of
rights and obligations, into a new, wider Bill of Human Rights. Such a list of
rights, back-to-backed by obligations, could form the basis for a first draft
of the Convivial Code, to be put forward for public debate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would continue membership, for the time being, of non-UN international
organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO). We would continue to
trade under existing WTO rules with those countries with whom there are no
other agreements. I would, however, institute reviews of the benefits, costs
and risks of membership of this and other such organizations.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would bring in a ban on companies affiliated to the WEF or
WBCSD. I would give them one year, either to leave those organizations and
publicly repudiate them, or to cease all their operations in my territory. All
companies still affiliated to these organizations at the end of that year would
be permanently banned from any operations in the territory, and their assets
within the territory seized.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also ban green activist organizations, such as
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the WWF, C40, Extinction Rebellion and Just
Stop Oil, from operating in the territory. <o:p></o:p></p><h3>Foreign and military policies<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would continue for the moment with treaties previously made
with individual countries, including trade treaties. But I would institute
thorough and objective reviews of them all. This would include a review of
military defence treaties, and in particular of the future of NATO.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">My foreign policies, broadly, would be to “live and let
live” with other countries willing to do the same. With the longer-term
intention of bringing about a world in which there are no standing armies, I
would increasingly restrict military activity to defensive and reactive roles, and
retaliation in case of need. For the latter reason, I would retain a nuclear
deterrent.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would not take part in any new war, unless the interests
of those in my territory were directly threatened. But I would continue
defensive military assistance to the Ukrainians, on the grounds that they are
the innocent party in the current war, and it is in the interests of all human
beings worth the name to prevent “Rash Putin” getting away with his aggressions.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Migration policies<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would close the borders to all officials, employees and
associates of the UN, the WEF, C40 and other organizations that have been
peddling the green and globalist agendas. But I would not immediately change the
rules for admission of ordinary people from other countries.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">My policies on longer term immigration would be moderate,
and always based on respect for human rights and on the particular situation of
each individual. If they behave as human beings worth the name, and they either
have skills we can use, or a strong enough case that they would face
persecution if we didn’t let them in, we’ll let them come in to live. If not,
we won’t; and we’ll send them back to the last place they came from.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would not set any “targets” or “quotas” for particular
types of migrants. However, I would seek to avoid any continuation or repeat of
the all-but-runaway population growth the UK went through between 1995 and
2020.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Suspending green policies<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would immediately suspend all green agenda policies for a
period of 25 years, and end all government funding, levies and other taxes, and
subsidies for them. These would include: Expansion of off-shore or on-shore wind.
Any use of hydrogen as a fuel, beyond small-scale trials carried out with
volunteers. The proposed ban on vehicles with internal combustion engines. All
pushes to force people into “green transport.” All limits and targets on
emissions from aircraft and ships. All pushes for “greener buildings,” except
for fully cost-justified projects carried out by voluntary participants for the
purpose of saving energy. All subsidies for carbon capture and storage. All policies
made in the name of “biodiversity” or the like. And, in particular, any
measures that interfere with farmers’ ability to produce the food they consider
appropriate to their markets in the way they consider best.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would suspend all these policies pending thorough, honest
and objective reviews of all aspects of the policies. I would also include air
pollution limits and targets in the list of policies to be reviewed, and would
suspend these for the same 25-year period.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Environmental policies<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">My environmental policies would aim to maximize the quality
of the <i>human</i> environment. That is, the rights and freedoms, justice and
honesty that we human beings need in order to survive, flourish and prosper. I
would assert that we don’t need to “save the planet” <i>from</i> humanity. Instead,
we need to save it <i>for</i> humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">All issues concerning the physical environment would be
dealt with by adapting to problems as and when they arise. All analyses of
future risks would be objective. There will be no pie-in-the-sky schemes to
“mitigate” unproven problems that may not even happen. Still less for
“problems” whose probability cannot even be calculated.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The approach to any problem found in the physical
environment would always be one of “polluter pays compensation.” That is, those
who cause a negative externality to others should be required to pay the
proportion of the aggregate cost (also known as “social cost”) of the nuisance,
for which they are responsible. And these payments should be routed to the
victims of the nuisance, each in proportion to the harms they have suffered.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">This would first require the size of the externality, the
identities and shares of responsibility of the perpetrators, and the identities
and shares of the damage caused to the victims, to be objectively and
accurately estimated. In these matters, governance would act only as an
assessor and a router, and would not itself take out any more than it needs to
run the scheme. As the estimates become more and more accurate, the rates of
compensation would be adjusted accordingly.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Energy policies<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">As to short-term energy policies, I would immediately permit
fracking for gas, in any place in the territory where it is justified by the
expected nett benefits. And I would retain or restore permit schemes for new
oil and gas projects in the North Sea where they are appropriate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">After consulting with my specialist advisors, I would set
plans to retain coal-powered plants – with scrubbers – for as long as they are
cost-effective.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would abolish all subsidies for “renewable” energy
sources, and require that their owners must remove them at the end of their
useful lives, and either replace them or clean up the site altogether.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also lay out plans to secure access for the people
in the territory to abundant, affordable, reliable energy for the medium and
longer terms. I would expect to continue moves towards expanding the use of
nuclear power, including small modular reactors once they have been proven. And
I would seek to make it easier and cheaper to get nuclear power projects
approved.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Taxation<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would move very quickly towards a low-tax, high-growth
economy. I would not only reduce tax rates, but also hugely reduce the
complexity of the tax system. I would end all predatory or confiscatory
taxation, and all taxation that re-distributes wealth unjustly. I would end
“sin taxes” on alcohol, smoking and other pleasures, and all regulations
intended to make it harder to sell these pleasures. And I would end all fines
for indiscretions that do not impose harm or unreasonable risk on anyone.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">All this would be paid for, not only by the natural rise in tax
receipts when an economy is doing well, but through the on-going savings from progressively
sacking more and more of the parasites and pests from government positions. The
“civil service,” in particular, would be decimated, and far more. For they have
persistently worked, over many decades, not for the benefit of the governed as
they should have done, but for the benefit of the state. And today, the good of
the people and the good of the state are not only incompatible, but
diametrically opposed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would repeal IR35, and all other laws that have put individuals
and small businesses at an unjust disadvantage. I would ditch “Making Tax
Digital,” and all other government schemes that cause unnecessary costs or
hassles to small businesses. Looking to a future in which the “public sector”
will be greatly down-sized and eventually abolished, I would create an economic
climate friendly to new and small businesses.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would have all those companies that have lobbied for
government subsidies, or for exemption from burdens to which their competitors
were subject, or for policies to disadvantage their competitors, investigated.
Where they have made ill-gotten gains, I would require them to re-pay those
gains, and to compensate those they stole from. In extreme cases, such as where
companies used politics to enrich themselves unjustly, I would ban these
companies from operating in the territory altogether. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In the longer term, I would seek to move the tax system
towards one in which what individuals pay for governance is determined, not by their
income or by what transactions they carry out, but in proportion to the benefit
they receive from the function of governance that protects their property. That
is, in proportion to their total wealth.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Welfare and health<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would not make any immediate changes to welfare policies.
In particular, old age pensions and disability payments already qualified for would
be continued for the indefinite future, since the recipients have already paid
for these benefits. However, all new pension and insurance schemes would have
to be private.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In the longer term, I would seek to move welfare out of the
remit of governance. In time, welfare should be covered by a combination of
insurance, mutual aid societies, and charity as a final back-stop. All this
will need careful planning, and just and honest management.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">My health policy would be similar to my welfare policy. I
would recognize that the NHS must eventually be dismantled, and its functions
turned over outside governance to the people who provide the services. But as
with welfare, the change needs careful planning.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Education<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">As with welfare and health, I would not make immediate
changes to education policy, apart from de-funding those university departments
that behaved dishonestly towards the people over the green scams or the COVID
epidemic.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">However, I would set in motion a long-term process of
de-politicizing education, with the eventual aim of transferring control over
individual schools to educators outside governance. Where appropriate, teams of
teachers would have the chance to take over their own schools.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The BBC<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would close down the BBC. I would sell off those parts,
such as sports, which are capable of making quality and unbiased programmes.
The news and current affairs departments, and others that have shown political
bias, would simply be closed down.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Ditching other bad laws<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">I would repeal all laws such as the “spy cops” bill,
that permit police, or other officials, legal privileges to do things that
ordinary people may not.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would cancel all laws “in the pipeline” that would have an
adverse effect on human rights and freedoms. This would include, but not be
limited to: The “on-line safety” bill. Digital ID. Central bank digital
currency. And “smart road user charging,” otherwise known as “pay per mile.” Any
planned further restrictions on smoking, gambling, school attendance, sugar
intake, or anything else affecting the daily lives of ordinary people, would
also be dropped. If any of these bad laws had already been made, I would order them
repealed immediately.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would order <i>post hoc</i> cost-benefit reviews on all
laws that were imposed as a result of EU directives, which were not already
covered by the green policy reviews. I would repeal all those that fail the
cost-benefit test.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also repeal all collective limits and targets on
anything. Such laws are unfree, unjust and anti-human, and have never been
agreed to by the people they were imposed on.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would repeal all “safety” laws made since 1992, that were
based on the perverted form of the precautionary principle and the culture of
over-caution it led to. Not just in the environmental area, but in things like
building codes too.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would repeal all smoking bans. The right to set rules for
smoking on a property would return to the property owner or proprietor.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would end all anti-car policies. I would scrap the London ULEZ,
and its equivalents in other cities. I would order removed all low traffic
neighbourhoods, traffic filters, 15- and 20-minute cities, chicanes and speed
bumps. I would return the procedures to be used to set speed limits to the
rules in use prior to the Rio agreements of 1992. And I would re-assess and
re-set all speed limits, which had been reduced since 1992, using those rules.
I would also progressively reduce subsidies for public transport, with an aim
eventually to phase them out entirely.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Further, I would order a general review of all other laws made
since 1992, that have had, or may have had, an adverse effect on human rights
and freedoms. Laws that show a proven or likely adverse effect would be
subjected to a fuller review, and repealed if appropriate.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Surveillance<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would take full account of the ethics-based review of
surveillance, which I had commissioned at the start.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">With regard to surveillance of communications, including
phone and Internet, I would ban all routine surveillance, except where there is
reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. These bans would apply to both
government and non-government surveillance. And the sale, or use by third
parties, of data obtained through such surveillance would be prohibited.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would mandate that physical surveillance in the public
space, as opposed to on private property, should be the exception rather than
the rule. Only places with significant risks of crime or other dangers, and
schemes to collect tolls on new infrastructure, should be allowed to use camera
surveillance at all. Sequences of cameras or other sensors that can track the movements
of people or vehicles, and all use of cameras with facial recognition ability, would
be forbidden in the public space. As would all routine drone surveillance.
Automatic number plate recognition would also be forbidden, except for
collecting tolls on new infrastructure. All existing camera installations, that
do not meet the new criteria, would be required to be taken down permanently.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also review what surveillance measures may be ethically
appropriate on private property, particularly in shops, workplaces and public
transport (including aeroplanes). This would distinguish clearly between denial
of access to those whose conduct does not allow them the right to that access,
and surveillance of those already accepted on to the property. I expect this
would lead to the majority of CCTV systems in shops and public transport being
taken down. And no surveillance would be allowed inside workplaces, except for
the purpose of controlling access to different parts of the property.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In general, individuals who are not trespassing on others’
property should only be subjected to surveillance of any kind if there is
reasonable suspicion that they have carried out, are carrying out, or are
planning to carry out, a real wrongdoing.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Wider debates<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">I would also seek to open up public debate on some wider
matters.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">One of these matters would be the most desirable level of air
pollution. The approach of recent decades, driven by the UN and WHO, has been
to cut, and cut, and cut air pollution without regard for the costs,
inconveniences or loss of freedoms caused to the people. This goes against the
civilized tolerance, and spirit of “live and let live,” which are necessities
for free, happy, comfortable and prosperous living. In light of the new “polluter
pays compensation” policies as above, I would order a review to answer the
question: “How should we determine the acceptable levels for particular kinds
of air pollution?”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Some more subjects, which I would like to bring up for open
public debate, are the old chestnuts of abortion and euthanasia, and the new
threat of artificial intelligence (AI).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">On the first two, my view is that those of different but ethically
reasonable persuasions on these matters should have maximum freedom to follow
their own persuasions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">On AI, one of my concerns is its use, more or less subtly,
to bias what people are “allowed” to say and to see. Another is its mis-use to depict
data in a database as if it was a “single source of truth.” Whereas in reality,
the only source of truth is evidence from the real world. But perhaps my main
concern over AI is that decisions which affect people could be made using, or
with the assistance of, AI. How could you possibly hold an AI accountable, if
it made or influenced a decision that unjustly harmed someone?<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Reviewing the bad policies<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">I see three types of reviews that will be necessary in
order to find out the full facts, and make the best decision as to how to
proceed, on each of the bad policies that have been imposed on us against our
wills. These include (at least) the suspended green policies, and the handling
of COVID-19. The reviews needed are risk reviews, cost-benefit reviews, and
historical audits.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Risk reviews<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The risk reviews will assess, for example: The difficulties
with large-scale roll-outs, for example of car charging points. Possible
de-stabilization of the electricity grid. The potential for high-profile
accidents, particularly with hydrogen. Financial and budgetary risks. And, most
important of all, the risk that the policies would make life worse for people
who don’t deserve it – for example, by pricing older or poorer people out of
their cars.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">“Known unknown” risks, where the possibility of risk is
known but the magnitude is not, will be dealt with by undertaking more work to
quantify the risk better. “Unknown unknown” risks, being impossible to quantify
objectively, will not be considered. This is because, under the true
precautionary principle, the risks of making a bad decision outweigh the risks
of doing nothing unless and until a quantifiable problem arises. I say again
that “post-normal” approaches, or finger-in-the-air methods such as “expert
elicitation,” will not be tolerated.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Cost-benefit reviews<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">As per the new culture I described above, the cost-benefit
reviews will be objective, unbiased and quantitative. And they will be based
entirely on the costs and benefits to the people whom governance serves, not on
any political considerations. They will also be accurate, to a degree well
beyond what has been normal for “government work.” Every effort will be made to
quantify the costs and benefits within minimum levels of error. And projects
will only be allowed to go ahead if the nett benefits to the people are clear
and major.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Historical audits<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The third kind of review would be the historical audit. It will
assess the full story of how, in a supposed democracy, policies came to be
imposed on everyone against the wills of many; and with little or no hard
evidence that the claimed problems were real, or that the measures taken would
actually solve the problem, or both. Again, these audits will be in the remit
of the Ethical Audit Office, the new quality arm of my governance.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">These reviews will cover all aspects, including: Validity
and honesty of the science. Interactions with third parties such as the IPCC.
The conduct of government and its advisors over the matter, with particular
regard to truthfulness, objectiveness and honesty. How the matters were
presented to the public. Openness (or not) to non-establishment views. And the
conduct (or not) of public debates over the matter.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Historical audits of “net zero” and related projects<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The “net zero” audit, for example, would look in detail at
how those in power have treated the people they are supposed to serve over this
matter. Including, but not limited to: How and why the precautionary principle
was perverted. How unbiased the Stern review was. Why the climate change act
was allowed to go forward without any objective cost-benefit justification. Why
and how the “social cost of carbon” approach was dropped, and replaced by an
approach in which the political commitments that had been made drove the “cost”
numbers. The conduct of those involved in Climategate, and of the inquiries
which whitewashed it. The conduct of other university departments involved. Why
“strategic” projects were excluded from cost-benefit analysis altogether. And
the kicker: why did they set “climate goals” in the first place, without
consulting the people they planned to force to meet them, and without allowing
those opposed to the whole idea any chance to put forward their views?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I have no doubt that whole truth about these matters would
finally come out. If only because I would be in the perfect position to make absolutely
sure that happened! Now, what would be the result, when many millions of people
found out that the scares had been deliberately exaggerated or even fabricated?
And that the whole “climate change” alarum has been no more than a storm in a
teacup? What would happen, once people discover how badly they had been lied to
and manipulated over several decades, and the level of the bad faith with which
the alarmist side have acted all along? I think there would be hell to pay.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">With that in mind, I would mandate a program which would
impose, with extreme severity, justice – objective, common-sense justice – on
the perpetrators of these wrongs. Those government officials or
government-funded contractors, that failed to behave with full honesty and
transparency towards, and in the interests of, the people they were supposed to
be serving, should be dismissed from office, required to pay their share of the
compensation to those they harmed, and suitably punished. In the process, I
expect many tens of thousands at least of government careers to be terminated,
and perhaps orders of magnitude more than this. Neither parasites nor pests
will ever be allowed back into government.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In addition, companies that have sought to pressure people
into “environmental, social and governance” practices based on false green
alarmism, will be permanently banned from operating in the territory, and all
their assets in the territory confiscated.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Furthermore, I expect that the reviews on air pollution
and interference with farming, at least, will also lead to a significant number
of dismissals and punishments. A little later, I shall give some more on how
the compensation and punishment processes might work.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Reviewing COVID policies<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would also order a full historical audit of the
government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. This could use, where
appropriate, evidence collected by the inquiry chaired by Baroness Hallett.
Where people were unjustly harmed by government actions, those responsible
would be required to compensate the victims. This would apply particularly in
cases of “contracts for cronies,” or government overreach, or suppression of
the truth, or suppression of debate, or vaccine harms to people who were forced
to take the vaccines.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The quality of the advice given by experts, including SAGE,
should also be investigated in detail. And overreaches by government – like ordering
the sacking of tens of thousands of care home workers who refused vaccination –
would be treated as the crimes they were.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would assert the fundamental right of an adult and <i>compos
mentis</i> human being to refuse unwanted medical treatment, including
vaccinations. As the feminists say, your body, your choice.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also mandate that no-one may ever have any of their
human rights violated for reasons of “public health,” beyond being held
(comfortably) apart from others for a limited period if they are proven to
constitute an objective risk to the health of others.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>On-going actions<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoBodyText">My on-going reforms would be based around four main
themes. First, relentlessly driving down the size of government, and the scope
of what it does, at territorial, devolved and local levels. Second, bringing
the parasites and pests to justice for their crimes, and making them provide
compensation to their victims. Third, laying the foundations for the new way of
governance in the territory. And fourth, doing what I can to help move those
elsewhere in the world towards better ways of governance.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Slimming down government<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would order that, over a period of some years, every
government department, employee, contract, project, and funding stream must be reviewed.
The review would ask: Have the people, who have been made to pay for this,
received benefits commensurate with what they have paid? Are they now receiving
such a commensurate benefit? And does objective cost-benefit analysis suggest
that they will continue to receive such a benefit in the future? This would
apply to government at the national level, the devolved level, and the local level.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">These reviews would, in the first instance, be aimed at
reducing or eliminating wasteful or toxic functions and individuals from
government. In the process, the reviews would identify those in government,
that have failed to do their best to deliver value to the people who paid for
them. If there has been misconduct or mistreatment, they would also identify
individuals that have behaved dishonestly towards those they were supposed to
be serving, those that have unjustly violated human rights, and those that have
behaved, or are behaving, as parasites or pests. Such individuals would be
dismissed with loss of pension, required to compensate those they drained or
wronged, and punished if appropriate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Another aspect the reviews cover would be non-government organizations,
which have been awarded funds by government for particular projects. The
reviews would evaluate these projects from the point of view of costs versus
benefits to the people who paid for them. All funding that has failed to
produce nett benefits would be discontinued. The reviews would also look at
these organizations from the ethical point of view. Any organizations which
received funding for political activities, that were not for the benefit of the
people who paid the taxes, would be investigated, and action taken if
necessary.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In this way, I would expect that government as a whole, and in
particular its most overpaid and most dishonest officials and bureaucrats,
would be slimmed down by at least an order of magnitude. Those that, while in
government, acted against the interests of the people, or failed to deliver
value to the people who paid for them, would be brought to justice. And the removal of so many parasites and pests
from government would improve the quality of government staff, and so the
quality of what it does.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Those who work in core functions of governance, such as
courts, police and the military, and in areas such as welfare, health and
education where the changes would be longer term, would initially be less
affected than those in more politicized areas. However, each individual in
government would over time be evaluated as to suitability to transfer across
into the new governance.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">There would also be skills in demand in my new governance,
which were not possessed by enough people in the old government. I envisage
there being many new openings in governance for people like accountants, statisticians,
honest scientists, and evidence-based investigators. I would also expect there
to be a demand for new local magistrates, in order to free up the time of
judges for the more difficult cases. Many of these magistrates might be retired
business people, who are willing to be trained in a new career.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Honesty Audits<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">As part of the functions of the Ethical Audit Office, I
would implement a scheme of Honesty Audits. These audits will assess the degree
of honesty and good faith, which has been displayed by individuals in positions
of power, or paid by governance for work done. If an audit finds serious
failings, the matter can be sent to a court for review, which may result in the
dismissal of those responsible. And, if the failings are serious enough, in
their permanent exclusion from all jobs in governance.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Bringing parasites and pests to justice<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">But not all the parasites, and not all the pests, are part
of, or directly funded by, government. There are companies, that use dubious
business practices in order to rip off their customers. There are bankers and
other “money men,” that engage in reckless speculation and other dubious
practices, that can risk de-stabilizing the whole economy. There are Big Tech
companies, and banks too, that deny service, often seemingly arbitrarily, to
people they decide they don’t like.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">There are also non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
so-called “civil society organizations” (CSOs). These are a mixed bag. Some do
genuinely good work, while others seem like no more than propaganda mills for
bad political policies. Many of these organizations also have close connections
with the United Nations.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">There would be three main prongs to my reforms in this area.
First, as I have already outlined, I would order the removal of parasites and
pests from government positions, compensation to those they wronged, and
punishment where appropriate. The general culture would be one of “politicker
pays compensation.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Second, I would order investigations into those
organizations nominally independent of government, which have or may have
violated human rights, or used politics for their own gain or for their political
goals. Again, the politickers would be made to pay. Similar investigations
would be carried out on all super-rich individuals, to check whether or not any
of their gains have been ill-gotten, or they have used their money for
anti-human purposes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Third, I would invite everyone in the territory to report
any injustices or violations of rights, to which they have been subjected,
either by government itself or by politically oriented third parties. These
might range, for example from, unjust denial of financial or other services, to
being singled out unjustly by bad laws such as IR35, to unjust harassment by
police, immigration or other government officials, to rip-off or unjust
harassment by companies that were acting politically.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Each individual who considers they have been harmed will be
encouraged to submit a claim for restitution from the former government and its
cronies. Many of these claims, I expect, will be for unjust acts that caused
damage, pain or inconvenience. Or for taxation or fines that were
re-distributory, confiscatory, or based on false accusations or unjust schemes.
Or for violations of rights, such as exclusion or restriction from the free
market as a result of bad laws or political favouritism. The claims will be
objectively assessed, and appropriate compensation orders made. To include
substantial damages, interest and allowance for inflation, too; and punishment
where appropriate. Moreover, those that profited from taking or re-distributing
others’ earned wealth will find themselves hoist on their own petard.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Through these three sets of programs, anyone that has used
politics for personal gain or for the gain of their cronies, or to unjustly
harm anyone, will be subjected to justice. That is, to common-sense justice; being
treated as they have treated others.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Treatment of warmongers<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Among the first to be singled out for punishment would be
those that have been responsible for warlike aggressions by the political
state. Each military action that the state took part in since the 1980s would
be reviewed, and evaluated for both its intentions, and its effectiveness in
minimizing bloodshed among innocents. Such actions might include wars in, for
example: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Sierra Leone, Syria or
Ukraine.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Decision makers, both military and political, responsible
for ordering any violations of the rights of innocent people that would not
otherwise have happened, will be suitably punished. This might extend to
extradition to the countries in which the violations took place, for punishment
according to local justice systems. These punishments will be over and above
those resulting from these individuals’ behaviours as parasites or pests
towards the people they were supposed to be serving.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The Great Restitution<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The Great Restitution is the name I give to the program of reparations
for political crimes. It will assess the compensation payments owed to each
individual who has been harmed by political parasites or pests. It will
apportion the payments owed by each perpetrator, whether parasite, pest or
both. This process will also identify what, if any, criminal punishments are
appropriate for each of the perpetrators. Account will be taken of mitigating
circumstances, such as where an individual has also stood up staunchly and
honestly for the rights of ordinary people in other spheres. The program will
take in the compensation payments from the perpetrators, and route them to the victims
in appropriate proportions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The Great Restitution will look well beyond politicians and
government employees as potential perpetrators. Company bosses (and key
employees) that violated people’s rights, or took subsidies, lobbied for
advantages or otherwise used politics to enrich themselves. Pressure groups
that lobbied for bad laws. Media that lied or hyped. All these, too, will be
assessed for the damages they caused to innocent people. Moreover, the Great
Restitution will provide those, that have created or spread moral panics and
false scares, with a real reason to be scared. That is, their share of the bill
for compensation to the victims of the bad policies their panics and scares
spawned.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Where the violators are companies, company assets in the
territory may be confiscated if appropriate. Companies such as domestic banks,
whose closure would cause hardship to innocent people, would be nationalized, the
responsible managers harshly punished, and honest managements put in to save
and re-structure them. The wrongdoers, individual or corporate, would have to
sell assets to pay off their share of the debt.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The Great Restitution would be, in essence, an enormous “loss
and damage fund,” with its management funded by a proportion of the
restitution. And in view of how long the process would be likely to take, I
expect older victims would get priority over younger ones.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Parasite pens<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Not all of the parasites, that have lived by draining
innocent people, will have sufficient assets to be able to pay the compensation
they owe. My governance would have powers to confiscate and sell their assets
for the purpose of reparation to their victims. This could include homes, cars,
bank accounts, financial instruments such as shares, and anything else. Individuals,
who have acted as parasites but have not been pests, and are unable to meet
their reparation debts, would be required to move into what I will name
“parasite pens.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In these pens, the individuals would have the opportunity to
work off their debts, while subsisting at a rock-bottom standard of living.
They would be, in a sense, successors to the Victorian workhouses. I envisage
that most of the pens would house a few hundred people only; although a few
might be considerably larger. Many of the pens, I expect, could be sited on
royal owned land, that already has buildings on it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Spouses, who do not themselves have outstanding reparations
to pay, would be allowed the option to move to the pen or not. Dependent
children would either be adopted or fostered by family or volunteers, or if
that was not possible, raised in children’s homes. The costs for the housing
and upkeep of the children would be added to the parasite’s debt to be worked
off.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Parasite pens would not be prisons as such. I expect they
would have a nightly curfew, but during the day the inhabitants would be
allowed to leave the pen for the purposes of work or trade. They would be made
to wear prison-style uniforms, both inside and outside the pen. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Once an individual’s reparation debt is worked off, they would
be allowed to leave the pen, and return to the free market. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Some may think these punishments over the top, for
individuals that only did what was accepted by many people at the time as
normal. But, putting on my ethical philosopher hat for a few moments, I will
disagree. I take the view that the innocent should never suffer for the sake of
the guilty. The victims of political parasites, having themselves done nothing
wrong, have nothing to be forgiven for. And therefore, they have no reason to
forgive, or to feel any compassion or concern for, those that drained them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">If a parasite dies before the debt is completely repaid, at
one level this is a tragedy. For it means that the victims will never get full
compensation for what was done to them. But at another level, we have won
second prize: a dead parasite won’t be able to rob anyone ever again. So, the
death of a political parasite reduces both the number of parasites on humanity,
and the quantity of politics in the world. It is, thus, a good thing for human
beings.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Pest pits<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">Pests would have to pay reparations to their victims,
in the same way as parasites. Pests include those that have promoted, actively
supported, made or enforced political policies to damage the lives of innocent
people; as well as those that have deliberately set out to control, to violate
the rights of, or to persecute innocent people. Beyond paying reparations, each
pest will be required to move into an enclave, which I will dub a “pest pit.”
This will be somewhat like a parasite pen, but a far more unpleasant
experience. And pit inmates would be made to wear extremely conspicuous prison-style
uniforms, all the time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I envisage that pest pits will usually be larger than
parasite pens, since the inmates of each will have to show that their
collective lifestyle is economically sustainable without outside help. I
envisage that many pits would be on royal owned land, but usually in a rural
area not already built up. Thus, the pests would have to start by building a community
for themselves.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Each pest pit would have a trade area, in which the inmates
can show wares they wish to sell, and visitors may purchase these wares. Pests
will be allowed to sell services only if those services can be delivered from
inside the pit (for example, over an on-line connection).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Pests would be confined to their pit until the whole pit, as
a collective, has achieved economic sustainability without outside aid, and all
inhabitants have paid off their reparation debt. Once this is achieved (if
ever), the inmates would be free to leave if they wish.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The punishments meted out to the inmates in a particular pest
pit would, in the famous phrase, fit the crimes. Each pit would provide a
combination of suitable punishments. Common-sense justice is a hard taskmaster!
For example, some may require the inmates to live a “net zero” lifestyle.
Others may prohibit the use of modern fertilizers. Others may ban cars. Others
may prohibit fossil fuels, and products made using them, altogether.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Those, that wanted to force others to live net zero, will
have to practise what they preach, and damn well live net zero themselves. Those
that wanted to take away our modern fertilizers from us, will damn well have to
live without them. We shall see whether or not policies made in the name of
“sustainability” would have been sustainable! Moreover, if these policies could
not have been sustainable without technological progress that simply was never
going to happen fast enough, the results will be gory. As I’ve said before,
what happens in that event will both prove the pests wrong, and serve them
right. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Beyond all this, some pest pits may be panopticons, allowing
no privacy. Some may allow no freedom of speech whatsoever. Some may
disadvantage their inmates with burdensome rules on what they may do economically.
And all are likely to enforce strict regimentation in every aspect of life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Again, some may think these punishments over-harsh. But
those that behave as pests, however much they may look like human beings, are <i>not
us</i>. To use politics to damage the lives of innocent people is not something
that any human being worth the name would ever do. So, those that have done
such things are not human. They are vermin.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">And we mustn’t let even one of them get away with anything. Unless
and until the pests have fully compensated their victims, and taken the full
punishment that is due to them, we human beings should not feel or show any
more compassion or concern for them than they have shown for us. You might as
well expect Jews to feel compassion or concern for nazis!<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">From the point of view of human beings, the death of a pest means
one less pest. And that is a boon to humanity. For that pest will never again be able
to rob anyone, or to promote, support, make or enforce any bad political policy,
or to commit or support any violation of anyone’s human rights or freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The prospect of ignominious, unpleasant death for many pests,
and particularly for those that pushed the green agendas, accords with history,
too. For those that promoted, actively supported, made or enforced bad
political agendas have committed treason against human civilization, and
against the human race. And the traditional penalty for treason is death.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Laying the foundations for the new way<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Another prong of my work would be to build the foundations
for the new way of governance. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would set up a special commission, to review in detail
ideas of human rights from the past and the present, and produce a new,
comprehensive Bill of Human Rights for all human beings worth the name. This
would be back-to-backed by a list of obligations, following which will bring
about an environment in which all these human rights are properly respected.
This would form the basis of a first draft of the Convivial Code. I would take
a strong personal interest in this process, and would chair the commission
myself.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would have the results disseminated, and encourage public
debate on the matters. The commission would review and take account of all
constructive comments received. The result would be an initial issue of the
Convivial Code, ready to “go live.” Other aspects to be hammered out would
include the procedures for determining when a change is necessary to the Code,
for specifying the changes, and for introducing a new version of the Code.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also encourage the construction of prototypes, in
which groups of volunteers can try out the new way of governance. I envisage this
happening, at first, on the neighbourhood scale. These might be based on my
ideas from the third essay for the “neighbourhood of just governance”, as
expanded and re-worked (if necessary) with my advisors and with the commission.
It is conceivable that even some of the more successful parasite pens might be
willing to try out the new way at this level. There will be many opportunities
to review progress, and to find out what works well and what less so.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">As a second phase, I expect that larger communities would be
formed, comprising these new kinds of neighbourhoods. These might be existing
towns or parts of towns, where enough people are willing to take part in the
experiment. Or some of them might be new build, somewhat like the “new towns”
of the 1940s to 1960s. These would serve as prototypes for the communities,
which I envisage as the primary units of governance in the new way. Again,
progress will be reviewed, good ideas maintained and strengthened, and bad ones
dropped.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In parallel with this, I would begin to organize the core
functions of governance – such as courts, police and military defence – into
structures compatible with the distributed, networked system of just governance
for which we will be aiming. These would include the functions which
co-ordinate with other governances, for example on infrastructure development
(which would include energy policies). I’d also try out different methods of
raising the money required to support the functions of governance, as long as
all are just.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I would also set in motion the moving of control over
welfare, health care, education and other non-core functions, that have been controlled
by the state, to the people who actually deliver the services. In this process,
I would expect to see tried out many different business structures, both old
and new, to facilitate providing these services.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Spreading the new way<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I would make efforts to persuade people in other parts of
the world that reforms like mine would be beneficial to them as well. I and my
advisors would be happy to show leaders and advisors from other countries
around, and to answer their questions. I would also encourage inbound tourism,
in the hope that many people will experience and appreciate how much better our
new way of governance is than the old ways – even while it is not yet fully
mature.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Dismantling the state<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">At some point, it will become plain that the new way of
governance has been tried and tested enough, that we can dismantle the shell of
the old. It is hard to know just how long this might take. But based on the closest
past example I know of, the West German <i>Wirtschaftswunder</i> of the late
1940s and 1950s, I would hope it should be achievable inside 15 to 20 years.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">So: How to dismantle the state? That one’s easy. An absolute
monarch can do absolutely anything he likes with his realm, as long as the ordinary
people will let him get away with it. And in the situation I envisage, those
people would be clamouring for me to do it sooner rather than later! So, I
expect I’d simply declare the state to be “abolished, together with all its
laws.” I wouldn’t need to abdicate, since the monarchy itself would have ceased
to exist at that moment. I could retire. At last.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Gone would be the state called the “United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland.” Gone, within the territory, would be the idea of
“sovereignty,” and the ruling classes that used it against the ordinary people.
Gone would be politics, political government and political parties. Gone would
be the systems that enabled psychopaths to get government power. Gone would be
all moral privileges for state functionaries over others, and <i>everyone</i>
would now be accountable for their voluntary actions; most of all, those in
governance. Gone would be all bad or arbitrary “laws.” Gone would be exceptions
and exemptions for favourites. Gone would be unrequited taxation. Gone would be
barriers to trade, such as tariffs. Gone would be all warlike activity, that is
not defensive or retaliatory. And the only former parasites or pests who
remained would be those who had managed to reform themselves, to learn to behave
as human beings, and to fully compensate those they wronged.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The “law of the land” would be the Convivial Code, an
ethical code based on ethical equality, honesty and respect for human rights.
And government will have been replaced by a system which is more or less like
my “just governance” proposals, built on the foundations which the prototype
communities had found to be most workable. It will be bottom-up and
de-centralized. And, being based on the principles of voluntary society and
common-sense justice, it will uphold human rights, while allowing maximum
freedom for all, consistent with living in a civilized community.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The authority of this governance will come, first, from the
common-sense nature of its principles. Second, from its objectivity,
impartiality, honesty and good faith. And third, from its emphasis on
common-sense justice. Thanks to the Ethical Audit Office, there will be strict
quality control on everything it does.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In terms of implementation in the former UK, I expect we
would start with four “Alliances for Just Governance,” each of which contains
many communities. One Alliance in England, one in Wales, one in Scotland, one in
Northern Ireland. The four would continue to share a common currency. The
former state’s assets would be divided among the communities, apportioned
according to a fair formula. And an individual’s payment for governance in a
given year would be, as near as possible, in direct proportion to the
individual’s wealth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Borders would be retained at the boundaries of the territory,
for as long as there are potentially hostile political states left in the
world. But incoming migration and settlement would be controlled entirely at
the neighbourhood level. It would be for local people to decide who they want
to admit to live in their particular area.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Wider still and wider…<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I like to think that, even during the transition period,
there will be pressures in other countries for them to try a new way of
governance, more or less like mine. The pressures will mount, until even the
most stable among oppressive régimes
will be in danger of being toppled by popular revolt of one kind or another.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Some countries will go to the new way, and end all political
oppression, faster than others. But I expect that most, if not all, will get
there in the end. Federal countries like the USA will, probably, lose their
cohesion through secession state by state, each state going its own way at its
own pace. If the EU is still in existence by then (unlikely), individual
European countries will leave it, one by one, each to move in their own
direction. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Probably the last hold-outs of the political state will be
small countries, like Liechtenstein and Brunei, which are already monarchies.
In such places, the monarch may feel that he can achieve the changes his people
demand, without having to give up his titular power; Perhaps he might achieve
this by making himself into a purely ceremonial ruler.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Key centres for the globalists, such as the USA (New York in
particular) and Switzerland, will also move to the new way. I expect that the
globalist and internationalist organizations, that had plotted their global
power-grab, will be outlawed and dismantled by those in charge of the new governances
in those places. International political organizations will also haemorrhage
members, as the people in countries round the world see the benefits of moving
towards the new way, and set in motion their progress towards it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Multi-national companies, that have co-operated in the
globalist schemes, will likely find themselves dismantled bit by bit, as the
new governance in each country they operate in investigates them, and closes
them down in their territory if that is warranted.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">By some time into these processes – I cannot predict just
how long – sufficiently many countries will have gone to the new way, that war will
have become all but impossible.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Then shall we be able to open the borders between the
different former states. Then shall we be able to abolish standing militaries,
replacing them by volunteer militias, alert for any disasters or other
emergencies that might arise. Then shall we be able to get rid of the missiles.
Then shall humanity world-wide be free from war and oppression at last.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">And, with the parasites and pests having been purged from
every land, fixing poverty among human beings will become easy. Let’s use our natural
creativity, and let’s trade freely with our fellows, to bring prosperity,
happiness and fulfilment to every human being worth the name. Let’s take
control of our planet, as is our nature. And let’s race away into a peaceful,
free, dynamic, prosperous, truly sustainable future.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Building the desire for sea-change<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">All this may be fine and dandy. But we still face a basic
problem: How can we get into a position even to start on curing the ills we
suffer today? To do that, we must rouse ordinary people to action. Ultimately,
very many ordinary people.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">There are several components to this process. First, I
think, we – the human beings who are already aware of, and thinking about how
to fix, these issues – need to put our situation today into its context. We
need to understand the war we’re in. Second, we need to formulate a reasonably
clear picture of where we want to get to, and the help we will need from
others. A picture, which we can communicate to potential allies. Third, we need
to identify the kind of mind-set, which we will require in order to get done
what we need to do. Fourth, we need to identify how best to spread this
mind-set to as many people as we can.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Comparisons with the Renaissance<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">I am struck by parallels between the situation we face
today and the conditions under which the Renaissance was seeded. Like the
Catholic church and the Machiavellian political forces of that time, our
enemies want to deny us the rights to think and to act for ourselves. They do
not tolerate skepticism, inquiry or criticism. And they want to confine our
minds inside narrow shackles of orthodoxy and political correctness. Our lives
are being invaded, too, by external and hostile interests, such as corporate
parasites and globalist and green activists; not, perhaps, unlike the Ottoman
invaders of Renaissance times.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">And yet, the Renaissance eventually produced a sea-change in
human thought. Not only did it re-discover and revive the ancient learning from
Greece and Rome. But it also brought about change for the better in many
aspects of human life in Europe. People began to emerge from the mind-numbing
tyranny of the church and from the top-down feudal political system. They felt
renewed confidence in their own faculties. And they felt a new sense of freedom
for the human spirit, that had been for so long suppressed by orthodoxy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Today’s establishment, of course, go even further than their
Renaissance precursors did. Far from making our planet a fit place for
civilized humans to live and thrive, they want to force us to drastically cut,
or even halt, our use of the Earth’s resources. And they don’t want any change
at all in the climate! Or in the political system, that enables them and their
ilk to oppress us human beings.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Could we human beings, just perhaps, be due, or even
overdue, for an updated version of the Renaissance? Could what we are going
through today perhaps be, like the early stages of the Renaissance in the 15<sup>th</sup>
century, a prelude to a better world?<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The war we’re in<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I will say here something about the war, in which we find
ourselves embroiled today. It is, in essence, a war between Franz Oppenheimer’s
political means and economic means. On one side, we have the users of the economic
means, we human beings. On the other, the parasites and pests, the users of the
political means, that aggressively rob us and screw up our lives.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">This war is an existential struggle for, if I may use a
religious word, the soul of humanity. At a philosophical level, the crux of the
matter may be put as: Are we as a species an “economic animal?” Or are we, as
Aristotle would have had us believe, a “political animal?”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">My answer to this question is that, right now, neither of
these answers is correct. For, over thousands of years, the human species has
diverged into two opposite tendencies: one political, one economic. The
political structures, which have been in place during those times, have persistently
allowed the politicals an unfair advantage. But those structures are nearing,
indeed many of them have already reached or passed, their last-use-by date.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The time is ripe, I think, not for revolution, but for
evolution. For far too long, the political animals have used their unfair
advantages to rule over and to drain us economic animals. It is time we human
beings worth the name got up and simply said: “No!”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We must fight for humanity, for reality and rationality, for
our rights and freedoms, for justice. We human beings must join together in
resisting the parasites and pests. And when we have fought off their
aggressions and forced them on the back foot, we must strike back at them with
all the might we can muster.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Thus shall the economic species, we human beings worth the
name, be seen for what we are: the legitimate heirs to our planet Earth. And thus
shall the politicals, the parasites and pests, be consigned to the scrap-heap
of history where they belong. Nature, so a wise man calling himself Jason
Alexander wrote, extinguishes its mistakes.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The Re-discovery<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The paradigm of the Renaissance was Discovery. Discovery of
ideas old and new, of new places, of ourselves. The paradigm for what we must
do today, I think, must be Re-discovery. We need to re-discover ourselves. As
Aristotle put it: “Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.” As was the
case with the Renaissance, we need to undergo a <i>spiritual</i> revolution: a
change for the better in the human spirit. Then, we can take things from there.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We need to re-discover our Humanity, our nature as human
beings. We need to re-discover that this is <i>our</i> planet. We need to
re-discover that we are the most developed species on our planet. We need to
re-discover that it is in our nature to build civilizations. We need to
re-discover that it is in our nature to take control over our surroundings. We
need to re-discover our mission to make our planet into a comfortable,
peaceful, home and garden for humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We need to re-discover our Reason and our rationality. We
need to re-discover our “bullshit meters,” which enable us to reject media and
political lies, hype and unfounded scares. We need to re-discover our
objectivity. In our rational thinking, we need to focus on the facts, the full
facts, and nothing but the facts. And we need to re-discover how to build up as
accurate a picture of reality as we possibly can.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We need to re-discover our human spirit, just as our
forebears discovered it at the Renaissance. We need to re-discover our
confidence in ourselves. We need to re-discover that each human being is, in
the words of Victorian scholar John Addington Symonds: “a rational, volitional
and sentient being, born upon this earth with a right to use it and enjoy it.”
We need to re-discover that we are a part of nature, and not in any way foreign
to it as our enemies would have us believe. And that, as long as we live
according to <i>our</i> nature, then we are playing our full part in wider
“nature.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We need to re-discover our consciences. We need to
re-discover the built-in weather-vane or barometer, that gives us a sense of
what are right and wrong actions for us human beings to do. We need to
re-discover the natural law of humanity, which must guide us in all our
actions. We need to re-discover our zeal to establish this law, which is
natural to us, as the basis for future human civilizations. We need to
re-discover our honesty and our integrity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We need to re-discover, and re-illuminate, the crucial idea
of human rights. We need to re-discover that we are not merely social animals,
but that each of us is an individual as well. We need to re-discover that
others are individuals too, and that as long as they are tolerant towards us,
we should be tolerant towards them. But those that are intolerant towards us,
or harm or seek to harm us, deserve no better from us than they have behaved
towards us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We need to re-discover the ideas and values of the
Enlightenment. We need to re-discover that governance must be for the benefit
of the governed – every single one among the governed, real criminals excepted.
We need to re-discover that governance must have the consent of the governed,
in order to have any legitimacy. We need to re-discover that a “government”
which acts other than for the benefit of the governed, or one that does not
retain the consent of the governed – <i>all</i> the governed – has lost its legitimacy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We need to re-discover the values of the Industrial
Revolution. We need to re-discover our natural industry and productivity. We need
to re-discover our ability to solve problems. We need to re-discover honest
business and trade for what they are: the natural ways for human beings to
relate to each other in the public sphere. And we need to re-discover that
excellence and good service are to be commended, not pooh-poohed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We need to re-discover the virtues of thinking and doing in
a bottom-up way, not a top-down one. We need to contrast bottom-up thinking
based on humanity, reality, facts, and right and wrong conduct, against top-down
thinking based on agendas, politics, bad “laws” and political narratives. We
need to be able to tell the difference between human beings and politicals. We
need to understand the differences between <i>us</i> and <i>them</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We need to reject the political state and its “sovereignty.”
We need to reject the implied social contract, used to try to make out that we
are subject to a political government. We need to reject those in government,
that fail to serve the people they are supposed to be a benefit to, or that act
with dishonesty or in bad faith towards any of us. We need to identify as
individuals the political parasites and pests, that have been responsible for
all our troubles. And we need to start treating them for what they are: criminals
and enemies of humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>What we want for ourselves<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">To try to give a brief list of what we want from our new
world.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We want the human rights of every human being worth the name
to be respected and upheld. That is, the rights and freedoms of all those who
respect others’ equal rights and freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We want self-determination and independence for everyone. Both
personally as individuals, and for the voluntary societies we choose to join.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We want an end to oppression and exploitation. We want an
end to war. We want an end to the culture of over-safety. We want an end to all
violations of the rights or freedoms of the innocent.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We want no restrictions on the economic free market. We want
maximum freedom to choose and to act as we please, consistent with living in a
civilized community.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">And we want objective, common-sense justice for all.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Do <i>you</i> want some, or all, of the same things?<o:p></o:p></p><h3>What we want from our allies<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">Here is a brief list of what we want from those, whom
we seek to persuade to join our cause, and to help us set about building our
new world.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We want people to stop behaving like pawns. We want them to
stop voting for the “lesser of two evils” (or more than two). We want them to
reject the mainstream political parties – <i>all</i> those parties. We want
them to reject politics, as it is practiced today, altogether.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We want people to focus on the facts in any matter. We want
them to reject lies, hype, unfounded scares, and narratives that are not
grounded in reality.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We want people to judge others, not on the basis of who they
are, but by how they behave. We want them to tune in to the part of their
minds, that tells them what is right and what wrong for human beings to do. We
want them to seek, with all their might, to become economically productive, and
as self-sufficient as they can be.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We want those capable of leadership to do what they can to
lead others in the right directions; not by commands or by clever stratagems,
but by example.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We want people to reject arrogance, dishonesty, hypocrisy and
all the other psychopathic behaviours, that our enemies have displayed towards us.
We need them to help us raise a tidal wave of anger, hatred and contempt
against the parasites and pests that have robbed us, oppressed us and violated
our human rights and freedoms. And we need them to help us get those parasites
and pests off all our backs.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>The new mind-set<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">There is beginning, I think, a change in the mind-set of
human beings. Indeed, the new mind-set is starting to take root among the many
people who are dissatisfied with politics today. Already, two of its visible
results are a new, and greatly strengthened, pushback by ordinary people
against government overreach, and a new determination to fight hard for our
human rights and freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I myself am among those at the forefront of this change, for
at least three reasons. First, because my upbringing as an only child, and my unusual
education, combined to make me robustly individualistic and skeptical of
“authority.” Second, my training as a mathematician has made me strongly
objective, so I always demand proof in any contentious matter. And third, I have
been, initially without knowing it, working towards this new mind-set for more
than half a century. And I have been explicitly working towards it for more
than 20 years now. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Based on my own experiences, I will say here how I expect
the new mind-set will likely feel, to those people who find themselves moving
towards it. That is why I have written the following sub-sections in the second
person.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Your view of yourself<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">You will come to recognize that you are a human being. You
are a member of the most advanced species living on planet Earth today. You
have a nature, which you share with all other human beings worth the name. And,
while you are not perfect – no-one is! – you are naturally good. You will come
to feel more and more confidence in yourself, and you will never again let
yourself feel ashamed of what you are.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Your nature leads you to use your reason to seek knowledge.
It leads you to strive to behave in a convivial and civilized manner. It leads
you to associate and to trade with others for mutual benefit. And it leads you
to seek to take control of your surroundings, and to make them into a better
place to live, both for yourself and for other human beings.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You are an individual. You have your own body and your own
mind. You reserve always the right to make your own judgements, and to act
according to them. You are also, by your nature, economically productive and
independent. And it is wrong and unjust for anyone to put any obstacles in the
way of your productivity or your independence.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You are willing to enter into and carry out voluntary agreements
with others for mutual benefit. And you will join with others into societies,
when and where you share their aims, and you and they benefit from doing so.
But so long as you behave as a convivial human being, you do not accept that
any collective, any individual or organization, or any government may unjustly
usurp your rights to judge and to act as you see fit.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Your way of thinking<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">In your thinking, you demand, and seek to determine, the
facts and the truth in any matter you address. For in a situation of dispute,
whenever there is disagreement about the facts, there can never be any
constructive way forward.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You use your faculties of perception, conception, logic,
reason and objectivity as best you can. You are skeptical, and always on the
look-out for lies, half-truths, bullshit or obfuscations. For these, along with
suppression of dissenting points of view, are our enemies’ stocks-in-trade. And
you always demand hard, verifiable evidence, rather than hearsay or other
people’s narratives.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You trust your reason as a way of finding out the truth in
any matter. And you reject woolly thinking, such as the favouring of fuzzy post-normal
ideas like “quality” over objectivity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable
effects on others of your willed actions. But you accept no guilt or shame for
anything, without both objective evidence of real wrongdoing, and your guilt
being proved beyond reasonable doubt.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You do not accept any guilt for your earned successes. Nor
do you accept guilt for wanting to earn good things for yourself to enjoy, or
for favouring those who can and do deliver things you want over those that fail
to deliver. You do not accept any guilt for doing or saying things that do not harm,
and are not intended to harm, any human being. Nor do you accept nasty labels
like “selfish,” “far right” or “denier,” slapped on you by those that want to
shame you into political correctness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, you accept no responsibility for what others do,
unless you have agreed to take on such a responsibility. Common examples of
this take-on of responsibility are if you choose to have a child, or if you
take on a people-management role in a business. Furthermore, you do not accept
any kind of communal guilt for anything.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Your view of others<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">You are an individual; but you recognize that others are
individuals, too. You recognize that each of us is different, and has a
different combination of strengths and weaknesses.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You come to use the judgement by behaviour principle. That
is, you judge others not by surface characteristics such as race, received
religion or social class, but by their actions. And, where appropriate, by what
you can infer about their motivations.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You know that you have human rights, which arise from the
nature of human beings to treat each other in a convivial and civilized manner.
You also know that you must earn these rights, by respecting the equal rights
of those who in their turn respect yours.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In your conduct towards your fellow human beings, you strive
always to behave up to human standards. You strive to be peaceful, truthful,
honest, just, tolerant of difference, and respectful of the rights and freedoms
of those who respect your equal rights and freedoms. You strive to live and let
live. You strive to deal with integrity, and always in good faith. And you
refrain from interfering in other people’s business without a good and
objective reason.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You care, very much, about your fellow human beings. These
are the people, who will make up what I call the convivial community. But to
qualify as your fellow human beings, they must measure up to two sets of
standards. First, they must be human beings worth the name; they must strive to
behave convivially towards other convivial people, just as you do. And second,
they must be your fellows. They must not promote, support, make or enforce any
political policy, or carry out any other voluntary act, that unjustly harms
you, impoverishes you, inconveniences you, or violates any of your rights or
freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But those that fail even to try to be peaceful and honest,
or to respect your or others’ rights, you come to regard as criminals and
worse. You feel no sense of “we” with them. Those that have failed to measure
up to human standards, or have done bad things to you, obviously haven’t cared
about you. So why should you care about them?<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Your view of the state<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">You come to understand what the political state, as it
exists today, actually is. You come to understand that its current incarnation
was devised in the 16<sup>th</sup> century to increase the power of the French
kings. That it is a top-down system, based on extreme inequality between a
“sovereign” and his “subjects.” That by its nature it has built into it:
arrogance, bad laws, cronyism, wars, unbridled taxation, irresponsibility, lack
of accountability, and much more. You come to see that the state is now
centuries past its last-use-by-date. You understand that it has to go.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">You come to feel contempt for all states, and in
particular for the one commonly dubbed “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.” You come to reject its claims of moral privilege. You come
to reject its aggressions and its wars. You come to reject its politics. You
come to reject its bad laws. You reject its lies and dishonesties, and its
collectivist and control-freak propaganda. You reject its rapacious, unjust
taxation and fines. And you reject its debt. No part of that debt, whatsoever,
is <i>your</i> debt.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Your views on politics and politicals<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">You can still retain respect for the culture you have
inherited. If you are English, for example, you can approve of the English
breakfast, English cricket, the English language, and the English common law
(before it got corrupted by politics). Though you will, of course, be well
aware that English culture has deteriorated very badly over the last 40 years
or so. You can also still feel an attachment to the land and the people of your
particular part of England.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But you come to start thinking outside the political
paradigm. You come to feel no respect at all for any kind of political
“society,” or for the idea that there is some kind of political community
coterminous with the state, or for political government. Indeed, you come to
have contempt for politics, for all the mainstream political parties, and for
almost all politicians. Instead of feeling part of some political community,
you come instead to feel yourself as part of the convivial community. That is, the
community of all those who choose to behave up to the standards which are
natural for human beings.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You come to reject political operators of all kinds. You
come to see that politicals, in contrast to human beings, are naturally bad.
You come to see them as what they are: parasites, pests or both. And if they
are violent, dishonest, interfering, lying or hypocritical, or if they show
psychopathic tendencies such as arrogance, bad faith, corruption, deceit,
recklessness towards others, or untrustworthiness, you feel contempt and
loathing for them. They are neither your fellows, nor human beings. You will
not excuse or forgive them for what they have done to you or others, unless and
until they have fully compensated all their victims, including you. You may
even come to think: The way to fix our problems is to get rid of politics. And
the way to get rid of politics is to get rid of the politicals.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You come to reject all the mainstream political parties:
Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens. You vow never to vote for any of them again.
You come to have contempt for politicians that claim to serve and to “represent”
ordinary people, but do no such things.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You come to feel contempt for those that use or have used
politics to enrich themselves or their cronies, or to violate people’s rights,
or to try to impose their agendas on others. You come to feel contempt for
those that use tax money for any purpose that fails to benefit the individuals who
paid those taxes. You come to feel contempt for the cronies, whether
bureaucrat, corporate, academic or otherwise, that hang on to the coat-tails of
the politicians, or profit from their agendas.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You come to feel even more contempt for supranational
political organizations, such as the European Union and the United Nations. And
globalist non-government organizations, such as the World Economic Forum and
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. For they have sought to
destroy human civilization and human freedom, and to replace it by a top-down
tyranny, with themselves at the top.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You come to feel contempt for those that bandy around scares
and hype, without providing any evidence that the problem they trumpet is
objectively real. You come to feel contempt for anyone that promotes political
correctness, or takes part in virtue signalling.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You come to feel strong contempt for anyone that has
promoted, supported, made or enforced any “law” that has unjustly harmed or
inconvenienced you, or any other innocent person. Or that has violated your
rights or freedoms, or the rights or freedoms of other innocent people. You
come to think, with Edmund Burke, that bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
And so, that bad laws should not be obeyed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Not only do you come to feel contempt for all these
individuals and organizations. But you come also to feel a very strong contempt
for the psychological traits they often display. Such as: Glibness and surface
charm. Arrogance. Lies, deceit or dishonesty. Hypocrisy, failing to practice
what they preach. Lack of empathy. Failure to accept responsibility for the
consequences of their actions. Lack of remorse. Recklessness. Impatience. Untrustworthiness.
These characteristics, you come to understand, are many of the typical
behaviours of psychopaths.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Your views on government and the “social contract”<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">As long as you behave in a convivial manner, respect the
equal rights of others, and do not unjustly harm or intend to harm anyone, you are
innocent of all wrongdoing. You ought not, therefore, to accept that government
has any right at all unjustly to harm you, to impoverish you, to inconvenience
you or to violate your rights in any way. Nor does it have any valid authority
to impose any political agenda on you. If a government is not a nett benefit to
the governed – to <i>all</i> the governed, real criminals excepted – then it is
not legitimate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You also appreciate that you have not signed, or otherwise
consented to, any “social contract” that would make you subject to any such
government. And even if you had, you have the right to withdraw your consent at
any time, if you have a good and provable reason to do so.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, you come to recognize that, if you did not vote
for a party in an election, then you did not give it any licence to make laws
to bind you, or taxes to impoverish you.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Your views on the war we’re in<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">In time, you will come, as I have, to understand that the
current political system has failed. It has reached the end of its road.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You will come to understand that governments have lost all
legitimacy. They have been taken over by parasites and pests, the very
criminals that government is supposed to be instituted to defend us against.
These parasites and pests have no respect for the rule of law, or for equality
before the law. And they are cynically trashing our rights and freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You will come to understand that the sham called democracy,
far from allowing us all a fair say, has become a negative and divisive force.
And that the great majority of politicians, national and local, make no attempt
at all to represent us human beings or our views.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You will come to see the corporate, globalist and
internationalist élites for the wannabe dictators they are. You will come to understand
that they want to ride roughshod over the people of the world, in order to force
on us all their own selfish, tyrannical vision of how the world should be.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You will come to understand that now is the time for us
human beings worth the name to get up and say “No!” It is time to join together
to defend our humanity, our reason, our rights and our freedoms. It is time to join
together in first resisting the parasites and pests, then deposing them, then bringing
them to justice.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You will come to understand that these problems cannot be
fixed by tweaks, or by merely putting new hands in charge. What is needed is
far more radical; the total demolition of the current governmental system, the political
state, and its replacement by something better.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">You will come to understand the nature of the war we’re in.
It is a war between two species, both sprung out of the human race, that have
diverged away from each other. On the one hand, an economic species, us human
beings; on the other, a political species, the parasites and pests. You may
even come to compare this war with the long-ago struggles between <i>homo
sapiens</i> and the Neanderthals. But this time round, the differences between <i>us</i>
and <i>them</i> are not things like stockier physiques or prognathous jaws. The
differences are mental. And the area of thought, in which our enemies lack most
when compared to us, is ethics and morality. So much so, that I have taken to
dubbing our enemies “moral Neanderthals.”<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Our enemies’ state of mind<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">I am coming to see that what we are suffering today has many
of the characteristics of what is known as a moral panic. Our enemies, the
political parasites and pests, are the instigators and spreaders of this moral
panic. And we human beings, who want nothing more than freedom, justice, our
human rights and our chance to earn prosperity, are the innocent victims.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I am coming to think that the lies, hype, fear and <i>ad
hominems</i> our enemies spout may be more than just propaganda tools. I think our enemies may be genuinely afraid
of something. Deep down inside, do they perhaps feel panic and fear for their
own futures? Might they have divined, for example, that the political system,
on which their entire privileged, parasitic way of life depends, is not
sustainable? That the state is, ethically, already bankrupt; and perilously
close to financial bankruptcy, too? And that, on its present course, it will
soon fail?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Such a sense of imminent bankruptcy could very easily
explain why so much that political governments do today is directed towards
getting in more, more, and more “revenue” for their state. Such a sense of
panic and fear might also help explain why they rant so much about “safety” and
“sustainability,” why they think their scares are “existential” problems, and
why they keep on stridently crying, “It’s worse than we thought!” And it could
help explain why, every time people lose interest in one set of scares, our
enemies dream up new scares to replace them. If it isn’t air pollution, it’s
global warming or plastic waste. If it isn’t Reds under the bed, it’s
terrorism. If it isn’t paedophiles, it’s pornography. If it isn’t obesity, it’s
COVID. If it isn’t over-population, it’s “habitat destruction.” (And yet, <i>they</i>
want to destroy <i>our</i> habitat! – the rights, freedoms and justice that we
need in order to fulfil ourselves.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Such a
phobia could also explain why they refuse to acknowledge, or even to look at,
the facts. They don’t want anyone (least of all themselves) to find out that
their apocalyptic claims are unfounded! It could explain why they like to
“adjust” data, or even fake the “facts,” to fit their narrative. It could also
explain why they are never prepared to debate publicly and openly on the issues,
and why they fail to produce hard, objective evidence to prove their
accusations. It could explain why they brook no contrarian views, and will
often seek to suppress those views, for example by forcing their removal from
YouTube or social media. Even though, as they ought to know, such suppressive
actions merely make it plain that they cannot refute those views. Could it be,
perhaps, that they have so much invested in their scams, that they feel they
can’t afford to let the truth come out?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I wonder, also, if this phobia might help to explain their
hatred of earned economic success. Their hatred of business actors, interacting
with honesty and integrity in the free market, seems to run very, very deep. So
much so, that I wonder if they are worried that they themselves, in a system
where they cannot use political pull to procure unearned riches, might be
unable to survive?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Such a sense of panic and fear could also account for their
desire to suppress our freedom of speech, and truths that are inconvenient to
them. And for why they seem to want to lock us down into stasis in as many ways
as they can, including physically. It could also help to account for their mad,
breathless rush to get their plans implemented <i>right now</i>. Oh, and why is
<i>extinction</i> one of the things they are so worried about?<o:p></o:p></p><h2>What we must <i>not</i> try to do<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">I come, at long last, to the strategic coda of my five
essays. But before I look at what we human beings who love individual freedom,
justice and earned prosperity might do to start things moving towards a fix to
the problems we suffer today, I will briefly mention two things we must <i>not</i>
do.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Firstly, violent revolution is not an option. To try to use initiatory
violence would be a tactical error; for our enemies are far better at violence
than we are. As well as having weapons we don’t, and manpower trained in their
use. It would also be a strategic error; for it would risk losing the moral
high ground.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Non-violent and non-disruptive protests, of course, are
fine. But do you wonder why the UK government has been making draconian
anti-protest laws recently? [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
This looks, to me, like another area in which our enemies have let their minds
get spooked. Clearly, they know that what they are doing to us is painful for
us, and they expect us to protest about it. So, the cowards are aiming to block
off that possibility, by making it hard for us to protest. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Secondly, to form a political party, and seek power through
the ballot box, would be to commit another strategic error. It’s trying to play
the enemy at his own game; a game natural to him, but not to us. Even if,
through some freak occurrence, a new and radical party did manage to get some
power, it would likely be swiftly taken over by establishment supporters, and
wrecked. (There is a precedent for this: the Movimiento Libertario in Costa
Rica). And even if we could avoid that, we would be trying to pull down the
system from the inside. The last person to try that was the legendary Samson. And
look what happened to him!<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I am not sure, either, that political parties outside the
mainstream, such as Reform UK, Reclaim or the Social Democrats, are likely to
be of much if any real use to us. For my sins, I am still a member of the
Reform UK party. It does have a few half way sane policies, notably encouraging
fracking, and lower taxes to free up economic activity. And Howard Cox is an
interesting candidate for Mayor of London.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But I am becoming less and less sanguine that the party has
anything like what it will take to understand and to achieve what is required. They
still seem mired inside the political paradigm, instead of recognizing that the
system as a whole has to go. Further, rather than concentrating on the most important
matters – energy, lowering taxes, ditching the green and “sustainability”
agendas, ditching the WHO, ditching anti-car policies nationwide, torching regulations
and bureaucracies, making government work <i>for</i> the people instead of <i>against</i>
us – they like to bang on about side issues like asylum seekers in boats.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>What we <i>can</i> try to do<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">No: whatever we do, we must retain the moral high ground,
and capture more of it whenever we can. Our methods must match our philosophy.
They must be peaceful, just, honest, and truthful to the best of our knowledge.
They must clearly distinguish us from our enemies the parasites and pests, with
their arrogant lies and dishonesties, their violations of our rights, their bad
laws and injustices, and their penchant for force.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But we must not let ourselves be tempted to compromise with
our enemies in any way. We must allow them no more concern or compassion than
they have shown for us. We must not excuse. We must not forgive. We must not
forget. We must do everything we can not to let even a single one of them get
away with anything.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Engaging on topical issues<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">We must each of us do what we can to work with and to help those,
who are bravely resisting the impositions and violations of our rights and
freedoms, with which we are all battered. Each of us should engage on single
issues, which are important to us. We should be willing to work with honest
people who come from both the “left” and “right” of the (increasingly
irrelevant) old-style political spectrum.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Each of us, obviously, should use our particular skills to
best advantage in whatever we do to help these causes. And we should only do
things we are personally comfortable with.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Improving government processes<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Something I would like to see, but as far as I know does not
yet exist, is a movement for proper, ethical quality control on government. In
the third essay of this set, I very briefly sketched the remit of the quality
control function in my scheme of Just Governance. And above, I mentioned the
institution of Honesty Audits among my on-going reforms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Such systems could bring about a great improvement in the
way in which government treats people, even if merely tacked on to the current
system. For politicians would no longer find it easy to get away with lies or
deceptions, or with flouting regulations they themselves were involved in
making. Bureaucrats would be held far more accountable. Election fraud would be
far more difficult. And government projects, that cannot be shown objectively
to be a nett benefit to the people whom government is supposed to serve, would
be swiftly cancelled.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Spreading the Re-discovery mind-set<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">But for me, the most important single thing to do is to
spread the new mind-set which I described above. I don’t expect that many will
yet feel able to go quite as far as I do. For I have always been cynical about
politics; and my attitudes have evolved and hardened over many decades. But
ideas like re-discovering our human nature and our human spirit, restoring our
confidence in ourselves, smashing the chains of political orthodoxy, reviving
our rights and freedoms, and making our planet into a home and garden fit for a
civilized species, have the potential to be attractive to very many people.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It will be important, I think, to identify <i>politics</i>,
as it is today, as the source of all our woes, and the main target of our ire.
Franz Oppenheimer’s famous distinction between the economic means and the political
means will also play a key role. This should make it easier for people to
contemplate the possibility, that we the economic species, and the political
species that rules over us to our harm, have become estranged from each other. Yet
the idea that many or most political operators, and by extension the
establishment and its political class and cronies, do not behave like us and
therefore are in a real sense <i>not us</i>, is one I think many people could
quite easily accept, if prompted to consider it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It will also be important to identify the two overlapping
tendencies within users of the political means: the parasites and pests. I like
to think these words will strike a chord, in many people’s minds, with the
reality of what they feel being done to them. The word <i>politicals</i> to embody
our enemies as a whole should also, I like to think, find resonance.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">For those less far along in the process of Re-discovery,
there will also be a need to raise their level of awareness of the real issues.
We will need to wake up those, who have let themselves be drugged into a
sleep-walking state by all the propaganda from government, the education
system, the BBC and other mainstream media. And we will need to help those, who
have let themselves be dragged into a state of unreasoning fear over nothing,
to look at the objective facts, and so to understand that the future is not really
as bad as they thought after all.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The dangers from the UN, and its IPCC and WHO in particular,
must be brought out into the open, for those who are not already aware of them.
We also need to keep on calling out other dangerous globalist and internationalist
organizations, such as the WEF, WBCSD and C40.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The spreading of these ideas, I hope, can help to create
climate change; that is, change for the better in the mental climate. Leading
to a widespread and growing desire for change for the better in the system and
environment under which we live.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Spreading the wider philosophy<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Further, some of the more “philosophical” ideas, such as
ethical equality, voluntary society and common-sense justice, may set people
thinking in new and better directions. They are all easy to understand in
themselves. And yet, they can spur us to think, each in our own way, more
deeply about the issues we face, and possible solutions to them. If they can
help people to start thinking more deeply about ethics, about what is right and
what is wrong for human beings to do, that would be good too.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I will briefly summarize the 12 key ideas of my ethical and
political philosophy. I covered them in a little more detail in the section
“Where we want to aim for” earlier in this essay:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><u>Identity determines morality principle. </u>Right
and wrong behaviours for a species of sentient beings are determined by the
nature of the species.<u><o:p></o:p></u></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><u>Ethical equality principle.</u> What is right
for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice
versa.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><u>Honesty and integrity.</u> In addition to the
conventional meanings of the word, honesty is being true to your nature.
Integrity is the product of honesty.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><u>The Convivial Code</u>. An ethical code of
conduct, encapsulating the behaviours which are right (and, implicitly or
explicitly, the behaviours which are wrong) for human beings.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->5.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><u>Rights are earned principle. </u>You earn
your own rights, by respecting the equal rights of others around you.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->6.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><u>Respect for rights principle.</u> If you
respect others’ rights, your own rights ought to be sacrosanct.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->7.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><u>Judgement by behaviour principle. </u>It
isn’t who someone is that matters, only what they do.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->8.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><u>Community versus society.</u> A community is
a group of people bound together by some shared characteristic, but not necessarily
by anything more. A society is a group of people who have agreed to join
together in a common cause. The two are not the same.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->9.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><u>Voluntary society principle</u>. All
societies must be voluntary.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->10.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]--><u>Falsity
of the “social contract” fiction.</u> There is no such thing as “society” in
the singular. There are only societies.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->11.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]--><u>Common-sense
justice principle</u>. Every individual deserves to be treated, over the long
run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo29; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->12.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]--><u>Maximum
freedom principle.</u> Except where countermanded by justice, the Convivial
Code or respect for rights, every individual is free to choose and act as he or
she wishes.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Dealing with our enemies<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">We must aim to drive a moral wedge between ourselves and our
enemies the political parasites and pests. We must aim to get those ordinary
people, who have woken up to what is going on, feeling and showing contempt for
them; even, perhaps, laughing scornfully at them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I think that we should focus our attacks, not on them as
individuals or as a group, but on their hateful, psychopathic characteristics.
To repeat the list I gave earlier: Glibness and surface charm. Arrogance. Lies,
deceit or dishonesty. Hypocrisy, failing to practice what they preach. Lack of
empathy. Failure to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Lack of remorse. Recklessness. Impatience. Untrustworthiness. The great
majority of our enemies show at least two of these characteristics. The worst
have most of them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">As far as we can, most of us should avoid even speaking directly
with our enemies. As a very wise man once told me: “Don’t try to talk <i>to</i>
your enemies. Talk <i>about</i> them.” And it is the same in the other
direction. For, over a long time, our enemies have failed to listen with any
attention to us. So, why should we bother to listen to them?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We might, though, on rare occasions allow our debating
champions to compete against theirs. Just to show how bad and silly their ideas
are. But our enemies would probably be too cowardly to accept the debate,
anyway.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, we should make people aware of how scary the
simple, natural idea of common-sense justice is likely to seem to our enemies. In
the words of the Prophet Obadiah: “As thou hast done, it shall be done unto
thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.”<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The tipping point<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">John Locke wrote, more than three centuries ago: “But if a
long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way,
make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie
under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they
should then rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands
which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Already, many of us have identified the “long train of
abuses, prevarications and artifices.” The tipping point towards rousing
ourselves, I think, will come when enough people come to realize that states
and political governments, as they are constituted today, are not their
friends, but their enemies. I cannot be sure of just what percentage of the
population that will be. But, from what I see and hear, it may come sooner than
some expect.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Then we shall be into a scenario like the one I described above,
in the section titled “How to make a start on fixing the problems.” And it will
be time for someone (I hope it doesn’t have to be me!) to drag our human
species, no doubt kicking and screaming, into the new world.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Can our enemies reform themselves?<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">As to those of our enemies who are honest enough to be open
to reforming themselves, we will not completely close the door on them. They
can re-join humanity if they want to, as long as they are willing and able to fully
meet the conditions for leaving their parasite pen or pest pit. Their fate is entirely
up to them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">All they need do is: Cease all disconvivial actions,
including aggressions, thefts, dishonesty and violations of rights and
freedoms. Ensure they never again do such actions. Make themselves productive
and independent in the free market economy. Compensate all those they wronged,
in full, with interest, damages and allowance for inflation. And take whatever
criminal punishment is appropriate for what they did.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">This isn’t much to ask. Any human being worth the name ought
to be able to do it. And each positive result will be a win-win-win situation.
We get some of the compensation we are owed; they get a fresh start in life;
and all of us get another human being to trade with.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">There is another parallel with the Neanderthal extinction,
which may be useful. We know that the Neanderthals, in the end, managed to
contribute a small percentage of our genome. I can only assume that some of
them managed to adapt their behaviours sufficiently, to be able to co-operate
with <i>homo sapiens</i>. This parallel would suggest that all is not lost
(quite yet) for those parasites and pests who are prepared to commit to
reforming themselves.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But one thing I am quite sure of: there must be no
forgiveness without compensation. And those degenerates that cannot or will not
reform themselves, and fail to become convivial human beings, we will simply
ostracize. We don’t need them. We don’t want them.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Where we’re going<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Thus, I expect, will <i>homo sapiens</i> (the ape too smart
for his own good) of today evolve into <i>homo convivendus</i> (the human being
fit to be lived with) of tomorrow. And we human beings will claim at last the
habitat of peace, freedom and justice, that is rightfully ours.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Quicker than you might expect, we will reduce the quantity
of politics in the world to “absolute zero.” The use of Franz Oppenheimer’s
political means will no longer be tolerated; all human beings will use the
economic means. Our world will become free from politics, from political
injustices, from wars, from bad laws, from concerted violations of human
rights, from re-distributory, confiscatory or otherwise unjust taxes, and from
all the other destructions that have been caused by the state. All human beings
will come together into a world-wide convivial community. And our economy will
become truly sustainable; in the same way in which a bush fire, or a nuclear
reaction, is sustainable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Our world will be, at last, the right way up. And we will be
on our way to a free, just, prosperous, happy future for all human beings worth
the name.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>The future we deserve<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoBodyText">Here is my vision of the future we deserve. The words are my
own adaptation from the 15th century carol “Alleluya: A new work is come on
hand.” I have also composed music to these words. The music is an edited
version of my submission to the BBC Radio 3 Christmas Carol Composing
competition back in 2016. I will publish that separately.<o:p></o:p></p><div style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 1pt 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Sing loud and high,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Peace and justice for
ever!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">A new day is come on hand,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">New light and warmth from
our sun,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">To wake us up in every
land,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Peace and justice! Peace
and justice! Peace and justice!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Now we are free who once
were bound,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Now we are free who once
were bound,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">We may well sing,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Peace and justice for
ever!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Now is fulfilled our
destiny,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">That all we humans must be
free,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">To make our home and
garden,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Home and garden! Home and
garden! Home and garden!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Sing we therefore both
loud and high,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Sing we therefore both
loud and high,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Sing loud and high,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Peace and justice for ever!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Peace and justice, this
sweet song,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">From human nature it has
sprung,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">And now it’s our task to
make it long,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Peace and justice! Peace
and justice! Peace and justice!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Now joy and bliss be us
among,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Now joy and bliss be us
among,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Who thus can sing,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="border: none; break-after: avoid; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; padding: 0cm; page-break-after: avoid;">Peace and justice for
ever!</p></div><div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/06/21/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-four-diagnosis/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/06/21/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-four-diagnosis/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/06/30/nigel-farage-and-the-corporate-war-on-dissent/">https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/06/30/nigel-farage-and-the-corporate-war-on-dissent/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12297207/Now-Sadiq-Khan-draws-plans-charge-motorists-pay-mile-scheme-Londons-roads.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12297207/Now-Sadiq-Khan-draws-plans-charge-motorists-pay-mile-scheme-Londons-roads.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
John Locke, <i>Second Treatise of Government</i>, §225<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://www.yorku.ca/comninel/courses/3025pdf/Locke.pdf">https://www.yorku.ca/comninel/courses/3025pdf/Locke.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://polarbearscience.com/2023/06/26/no-evidence-polar-bears-survived-eemian-warmth-because-they-were-not-yet-fully-ice-dependent/">https://polarbearscience.com/2023/06/26/no-evidence-polar-bears-survived-eemian-warmth-because-they-were-not-yet-fully-ice-dependent/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<i>First Treatise of Government</i>, §92<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn8">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<i>Second Treatise of Government</i>, §6
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn9">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<i>Second Treatise of Government</i>, §128
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn10">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<i>Second Treatise of Government</i>, §124<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn11">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<i>Second Treatise of Government</i>, §12<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn12">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-5-new.docx#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-government-plan-push-more-anti-protest-legislation-through-lords-must-be-stopped">https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-government-plan-push-more-anti-protest-legislation-through-lords-must-be-stopped</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><div><div id="edn12">
</div>
</div><p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-16960155101066470732023-07-04T13:48:00.004+01:002023-07-04T13:48:31.694+01:00Nigel Farage and others unfairly pressured and denied financial service<p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Some strange and most concerning events have happened very recently.
Nigel Farage, “Mr Brexit” no less, complained in late June that his bank (said to
be Coutts’) told him that they were about to close the accounts, both personal
and business, which he had had with them for more than 40 years: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/farage-230704.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>]. As
of July 3<sup>rd</sup>, this has led to questions in parliament: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/farage-230704.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is not the first example of a large financial
institution, seemingly without any justifiable reason, withdrawing its service
from customers in the UK. Last year, Toby Young of the Free Speech Union and
Molly Kingsley of Us for Them were targeted for withdrawal of service by
PayPal: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/farage-230704.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>]. Even
more recently than Mr Farage, an Anglican priest, Reverend Richard Fothergill, was
threatened with termination of his account with the Yorkshire Building Society
within two weeks: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/farage-230704.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>].
This was allegedly because he had complained about their “pushing of
transgender ideology.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here, I can’t resist an “I told you so.” For I wrote last
December: “It looks as if the political élites are limbering up to extend ‘financial
sanctions’ régimes, hitherto used primarily against such dubious figures as
Russian oligarchs, to anyone they choose to make an example of.” And it’s amply
clear that those, whom they want to make examples of, very much include those
who hold views contrary to the “politically correct” establishment views.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The financial services industry and the establishment “money laundering”
agenda<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some of the draconian financial sanctions, which have been used
against apparently innocent people in these cases, are being pushed by
governments through their Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Others are being
pushed by the banks themselves via the “Wolfsberg Group” [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/farage-230704.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>],
particularly in the area they call “anti-money-laundering.” It is worth
pointing out that Coutts Bank is indirectly owned by HSBC, one of the founder
members of the Wolfsberg Group. And that Yorkshire Building Society has a
long-standing relationship with Citigroup, which along with a German
non-governmental organization called Transparency International, was the
original driver of the foundation of the Wolfsberg Group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think you might find it rather hard to produce any
evidence of the Reverend Richard Fothergill being a “money launderer!” Or Nigel
Farage, for that matter. Not to mention Toby Young and Molly Kingsley, both of
whose PayPal accounts were eventually re-instated.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I wrote in an earlier essay, “an international élite,
spearheaded by the United Nations among others, and including multi-national
corporations, dishonest politicians, and activist fellow-travellers, seeks to ‘unite
the world’ under the tyranny of a global ruling class, unelected and unaccountable.”
The recent Nigel Farage incident has made it, more than ever before, clear that
the international banking and financial industry is a key player in this process.
And that the “cancel culture” is a part of their <i>modus operandi</i>.</p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/farage-230704.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/06/30/nigel-farage-and-the-corporate-war-on-dissent/">https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/06/30/nigel-farage-and-the-corporate-war-on-dissent/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/farage-230704.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/03/banks-accused-of-closing-accounts-such-as-nigel-farages-on-political-grounds">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/03/banks-accused-of-closing-accounts-such-as-nigel-farages-on-political-grounds</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/farage-230704.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/27/paypal-reinstates-free-speech-union-accounts-accused-politically/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/27/paypal-reinstates-free-speech-union-accounts-accused-politically/</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/farage-230704.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1786541/bank-closes-vicars-account-after-farage-warning-spt">https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1786541/bank-closes-vicars-account-after-farage-warning-spt</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/farage-230704.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>] <a href="https://wolfsberg-group.org/">https://wolfsberg-group.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><br /><p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-67679324905403705952023-06-21T14:55:00.018+01:002023-06-22T00:49:53.074+01:00Time to take back our civilization from the parasites and pests, Part Four: Diagnosis<p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">(June 21<sup>st</sup>,
2023)<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOy6FYjPaIZCn3gZOAJbfcHSJAcUP1oV4xFcPh2z52wiFZjWEhg-u7qTJ3M-h510X5-K6KTsXcs7CjezF9JnrNlTEx6RZ5B4SGDXAXKQqfSuNDt279aewsfQH4A-a80WrTF4USW4Kq1qJfYcHECLoTERvhTrfYzq7y5trbvmDlmHpaCWW0YuGA_c_Ng5ly/s161/publogo2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="101" data-original-width="161" height="101" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOy6FYjPaIZCn3gZOAJbfcHSJAcUP1oV4xFcPh2z52wiFZjWEhg-u7qTJ3M-h510X5-K6KTsXcs7CjezF9JnrNlTEx6RZ5B4SGDXAXKQqfSuNDt279aewsfQH4A-a80WrTF4USW4Kq1qJfYcHECLoTERvhTrfYzq7y5trbvmDlmHpaCWW0YuGA_c_Ng5ly/s1600/publogo2.png" width="161" /></a></div><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;"><i>The world is
suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it
can be cured.”<o:p></o:p></i></p><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt; mso-list: l27 level1 lfo26; text-align: center; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->–<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->George Orwell [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">This is the fourth in a set of five essays, in which I relate,
analyze and diagnose the woes to which we human beings are subjected by today’s
political system, and aim to put forward some ideas for how we might fix them.
You can find the first three at [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>],
[<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]
and [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">In order to make the final two essays in this set as
complete in themselves as possible, I will first summarize what I found while
writing the first three essays, and will add a few recent updates. I will then
proceed to my diagnosis. I shall aim to identify just what it is that has gone
wrong, and why the political élites
and their cronies, that are the enemies of all good human beings, are
subjecting us to all the bad things they are doing to us today.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Part One: Indictments<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">I wrote Part One in November 2021, during the Glasgow CoP 26
climate conference. It concentrated mainly on the issue of global warming or
climate change. I told how those in power today are pushing draconian – and
totally impractical <a name="_Hlk135815856">–</a> energy, transport and
environmental policies, that go against the needs and the well-being of
ordinary people. And I told of, in John Locke’s words, the “long train of
abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way,” which they have
used in their attempts to make us believe in and kow-tow to these policies.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I referenced a long list of what I called “shenanigans.” Including:
Corruption of science. Moving the goalposts, again and again. Government
whitewashing of real wrongdoing. Re-writing the precautionary principle to
favour political action. And making it impossible to do proper cost-benefit
analysis on anything involving carbon dioxide emissions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I sought hard evidence for the accusation that human-caused
emissions of carbon dioxide gas have caused or are causing catastrophic, or
even potentially catastrophic, change in the global climate. I looked into, for
example: sea ice, polar bears, Antarctica, coral islands, heat stress,
hurricanes, and extreme weather. I found no cause for concern. Rather, I gained
a sense that, contrary to all the hype, things are much as they have always
been. I looked at related claims like air pollution, species extinction and
“biodiversity,” and over-population. And I found these too no more than parts
of a juggernaut of lies and fabrications, without any hard, objective evidence that
there is any real problem.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I mentioned there, too, many other problems we are today burdened
with, such as: Heavy taxation. Bad laws that interfere with people’s careers,
or hold back the economy, or both. Violations of our rights and freedoms, including
those that have grossly increased in number and scale under the pretext of
fighting the COVID virus. Lucrative government contracts for cronies, that are
not done properly. And lies, scares and hype in the media.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">At the end, I listed some of our rights and freedoms, that have
been and are being seriously violated by our enemies in pushing their agendas.
Including: Equality before the law. The presumption of innocence. Fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. The necessary
guarantees for us to be able to defend ourselves against accusations. Property.
Privacy. Freedom of movement. Freedom of peaceful assembly. Free choice of
employment. Freedom of opinion, speech and expression.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Part Two: History, large and small<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">Part Two in this series, I published in December 2022. I entitled
it “History, large and small.” It was 18,000 words long!<o:p></o:p></p><h3>History in the large<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">After a brief quasi-autobiography, I expounded my view of
human history on the large scale.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">My take is that, over thousands of years, we have gone through
a series of forward-moving revolutions, in each of which we open up, explore
and develop new levels or dimensions of our humanity. But each revolution is
followed by a regressive, anti-human counter-revolution from those that are
hostile to our progress. I credit the origin of this idea to an American
thinker, who calls himself Jason Alexander. But my scheme differs from his in
many details.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">To sum up my view of human history in the large, here is my
list of five periods in history, during which we humans have made revolutionary
progress, together with the paradigms which underpinned those times of
progress. In chronological order:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l24 level1 lfo27; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->The Neolithic revolution (Humanity).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l24 level1 lfo27; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Classical Greece (Reason).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l24 level1 lfo27; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->The Renaissance (Discovery).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l24 level1 lfo27; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->The Enlightenment (Freedom).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 17.85pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt 17.85pt; mso-list: l24 level1 lfo27; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->5.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->The Industrial Revolution (Creativity).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">And here are the counter-paradigms, with which our enemies
have responded:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l22 level1 lfo28; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->The state.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l22 level1 lfo28; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->The church and institutional religion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l22 level1 lfo28; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Orthodoxy, political dishonesty, and the
psychopathic and tyrannical behaviours that go with them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-list: l22 level1 lfo28; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Collectivism and the political ideologies it
spawned, such as communism and fascism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 17.85pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt 17.85pt; mso-list: l22 level1 lfo28; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->5.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Suppression of economic progress and prosperity,
freedom, rights, truth and the human spirit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Right now, we are coming up to a crux point. At which, I very
much hope and expect, we will re-discover the values of our five revolutionary
periods: Humanity, Reason, Discovery, Freedom and Creativity. And by doing so, we
will bring to an end the “Age of Politics,” the age of the state, the church,
orthodoxy, dishonesty, tyranny, collectivism and suppression, in which we are
mired today.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The last 80 years<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I followed up by looking, in a bit more detail, at the
history of the last 80 years or so. I told of the rise, and the corruption, of
the United Nations. I told of the network of élite, globalist organizations
that go with it. I told of the European project, which eventually became the
European Union. And of the welfare state, which has since morphed into the
nanny state. I compared our situation today to George Orwell’s dystopian vision
in “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” And I concluded that Orwell wasn’t far wrong.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">For the last eight decades, the UK political élites, and their
corporate and other cronies, have been using the power and lack of
accountability of the state to treat us, the people government is supposed to
serve, with callous disregard, while at the same time feathering their own
nests. Meanwhile, the welfare state is breaking down, while the nanny state constantly
seeks to control more and more of our lives. But on top of gross overreach by
nation-states and their politicians, we have also suffered ever increasing
meddling, spurred on by globalist and internationalist actors: United Nations,
European Union, World Economic Forum, and all the rest.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Next, I looked at what had happened in the year or so since
the first essay. Two green CoPs (Conferences of the Parties). The war in
Ukraine, and its consequences. The antics of green maniacs like Extinction
Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. Famine in Sri Lanka, caused by bad green policies.
Purposely ruining the farming industry in the Netherlands, the second biggest
food exporter in the world.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In the UK, the “Partygate” scandal. Draconian COVID
lockdowns, and attempts to impose compulsory vaccination, all done on ethically
very dubious grounds. Rwanda deportations. More and more bad laws being made. A
brief spell under Liz Truss, who seemed to be trying to offer people some hope,
at least. But the Tory “blob” prevailed. The portcullis went down with a clang,
Truss was out on her ear, and we’re back to the “new normal” of ever-worsening
poverty and ever-increasing oppression.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">And I closed my brief post-script with the following words.
“There, ladies and gentlemen, you have the cause of all our problems: the state
<i>à la Bodin</i>, with the false sovereignty it claims, and the bad politics
it engenders. The state <i>is</i> the problem.”<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Updates<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk137456964">It’s now June 2023, and time for some
updates on UK events since the second essay. As far as the green agenda is
concerned, I have traced the UK government’s handling of the issues in a series
of recent essays. An account of what they have done to us since April 2019 is
here: [</a><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]. An overview of the history of the green
agenda since 1992 is here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]. This includes a fairly detailed account
of the perversion of the precautionary principle into a tool for tyranny.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I have also documented
what I call “the case of the missing cost-benefit analysis,” here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]. You would have thought that any
government, that cared in the slightest about the people it is supposed to
serve, would do a rigorous analysis of the costs and benefits to those people
of any proposed policy, before it did anything to implement that policy. And if
the costs to the people were greater than the benefits, the policy would not go
ahead.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Yet, in the case of
“net zero” and similar policies, the UK government have taken more and more
extreme steps to avoid doing a proper cost-benefit analysis. They began with
the Stern Review of 2006, which was clearly biased in favour of CO<sub>2</sub>-reducing
policies. Although the review was savaged by economists, they still went ahead
using its numbers, and our idiot “representatives” passed the 2008 climate
change bill. In 2007-9 they did a bait-and-switch, and changed the way of
valuing CO<sub>2</sub> emissions so that the policy drove the numbers, not the
other way around. In 2019, they produced something purporting to be a
cost-benefit analysis, that was nothing of the kind. And in 2020 they changed
the rules again, this time to exempt what they called “strategic” projects,
including “net zero,” from any need for cost-benefit analysis at all!<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But the UK
government have been doing lots of bad things to us on other fronts, too. In
December 2022, Andrew Bridgen MP made a speech in the House of Commons [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>], in which he alleged that harms had been
suffered by at least half a million people due to side effects of Pfizer COVID-19
vaccinations, and called for a halt to the implementation of these vaccines.
This produced a furore, which saw him vilified and accused of “conspiracy
theories” and “misinformation,” and resulted in his suspension from the Tory
party. Now, Bridgen seems to be a colourful character, and a bit of a wide boy
to boot. So much so, that the Tory party have now expelled him altogether, on a
totally trumped-up charge of “comparing COVID vaccines to the Holocaust!”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">And yet, I smell a
rat here. That all media outlets seem to have been reporting the matter in
exactly the same words is suggestive. And what Mr Bridgen said to parliament
seems to me to express genuine concerns shared by many people, which deserve
objective and unbiased investigation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In January, Big
Brother Watch released a report [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>] documenting the activities of several UK
government and military departments that, as the report says, “have stepped
outside of their remits to treat political dissent as fake news.” The report
also says, “What this investigation has found should trigger an alarm bell for
democracy and freedom of speech in the UK.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Individuals
monitored and reported on by these departments have included: David Davis MP.
Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption. Baroness Chakrabarti, former director
of Liberty. TV and radio presenter, and climate-crisis and COVID-vaccine
skeptic, Julia Hartley-Brewer. Toby Young of the Daily Skeptic and the Free
Speech Union. Reform UK Party leader Richard Tice. And Carl Heneghan, professor
of Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford. It is no coincidence, I
think, that many of those who have been monitored have reputations as outspoken
advocates for civil liberties.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In June, the
existence and functions of the government’s so-called “Counter-Disinformation
Unit” were reported in the mainstream media for the first time: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]. This is, to say the least, concerning.
Government was in “hourly” contact with social media firms to “encourage… the
swift takedown” of posts in an attempt to curtail discussion of controversial
lockdown policies. The head of the unit referred to it as a “cell,” in terms similar
to those used by the IRA. And, as evidenced by [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>], some at least of the material censored was not
disinformation of any kind, but merely opinions unpalatable to the
establishment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Meanwhile, the
“on-line safety” bill proceeds apace. The latest I have been able to find on
its status is here: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>]. The government “fact sheet” that was issued
in January seems to have been taken down. But as far as I am aware, the bill
still includes a “false communication” offence; raising the spectre of some
bureaucrat arbitrarily deciding that some statement is “misinformation” or
“disinformation,” even if it is simply the truth. As an example: “There is
absolutely no evidence for any climate crisis caused by emissions of carbon dioxide
from human civilization.” This is a true statement, but it goes against
establishment narratives. Would it be liable to removal? Or how about:
“COVID-19 vaccine side-effects have caused significant harm to many people?”
Oh, sorry, Andrew Bridgen has already tried that one.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">There are now seen
to be even wider implications of technologies such as “client-side scanning,”
that might be required in mobile phones in order to comply with the “on-line
safety bill.” See [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn13" name="_ednref13" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, the bill exempts
from its scope anyone officially deemed a “news provider.” So, the mainstream
media, and most of all the BBC, can continue to spout propaganda and lies with
impunity, while ordinary people telling the plain truth will be open to
suppression?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Oh, and according
to the now removed “fact sheet,” the bureaucracy will be able to “use proactive
technologies to identify illegal content.” And will “consider how to tackle
wider harms to democracy caused by false information.” Moreover, “misinformation
and disinformation about vaccines” was given as an example of a harm “that
could cause significant physical or psychological harm to children!”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">And there’s more
bad news, too. In recent months, the UK government seems to have embarked on a
veritable orgy of theft. The London Ultra Low Emissions Zone, a scheme to
fleece car drivers, is (still) due to be extended to the whole of London from
August. It will force many older and poorer people, <a name="_Hlk137457237">unable
to afford either to pay the fees or to buy a new car,</a> out of their cars
altogether. Despite strong opposition, even including several local
governments, and a pending High Court review, this still seems to be going
ahead.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Meanwhile, the
taxman is tightening his iron grip on more and more people’s lives. Even basic
state pensioners now have to pay income tax out of their pensions; while a
friend has been landed with a tax demand for several tens of thousands, which
he doesn’t have. And I heard of a case where the “crown” is seeking to use a
small error by a lawyer to re-possess the property of a third party.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">More widely, in the
UK today there is an atmosphere of ever-increasing panic and madness, and of
ever-tightening control by government over the people it is supposed to be
serving. There is now a mounting push-back from ordinary people against some of
these impositions, most of all the victimization of car drivers. But we face
the problem that political government can make bad laws faster than any number
of us can protest to get them stopped. In my view, we need a stronger and wider
push-back than just fighting against bad laws as they come up. That is a big
part of what this series of essays is about.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">However, there have
been two small pieces of good news in the UK in June 2023. At last, we’re rid
of Boris Johnson. For a while, at least. And some of the mainstream media have finally
woken up enough to start opening some sizeable cans of worms arising from the Partygate
scandal. These worms, indeed, seem wriggly enough to be causing significant
numbers of people to re-assess their attitudes about how government should be
treating us.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Part Three: My Liberty Philosophy<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">The third essay of the set, which I wrote in January 2023, was
even longer than the second! In it, I outlined my philosophical thinking. I created
my philosophy, which I originally called “Honest Common Sense,” and outlined it
in a short book which I wrote in 2014. I have since created a new version,
which I call “Honest Common Sense 2.0.” I published this in the summer of 2021,
in a set of six essays totalling 60,000 words. They are linked from the second
essay of the current set.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The third essay of the current set gave an outline of the
philosophy, and incorporated a few small improvements since 2021. I shall give, in the final essay of this set, a summary of the philosophical
concepts which are necessary to get us moving forward.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>A preliminary step towards diagnosis<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I ended that third essay with a foretaste of what is to come
in this one. I considered Franz Oppenheimer’s distinction between the economic
means of getting needs satisfied (the equivalent exchange of one’s own labour
for the labour of others) and the political means (the unrequited appropriation
of the labour of others.) And I identified, among users of the political means,
two overlapping tendencies. Which I labelled parasites and pests.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Parasites use the resources they appropriate to enrich
themselves and their cronies. They are bad enough. But pests go further. Pests
want power for the sake of what they can do with it. Pests want to control
people, to persecute, and to screw up people’s lives. I gave examples of both
tendencies.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I also identified a third group, the pawns. They are not directly
parasites or pests. But they ally themselves with the parasites and pests, by
supporting the current political set-up, and most of all by continuing to vote
for mainstream political parties. Worse, some pawns come to support the bad
agendas they have been spoon-fed, and may even start to feel a desire to force
those agendas on to others. These are in severe danger of making themselves
into pests.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>The failure of politics<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">To get moving towards Diagnosis, I will begin by expressing where
we are today in one sentence: The current political system has failed. It has
failed in several different but related ways, which I shall discuss below.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The failure of government<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Government, the very institution that is supposed to defend
and uphold the rights of human beings against degenerates, criminals and
wrongdoers, has been taken over by, and is being run by, a cadre of those same degenerates,
criminals and wrongdoers. Far from defending our rights and freedoms, the UK establishment
criminal gang, which includes all four of the major political parties, are taking
every opportunity they can to destroy them. It is as if the fox has taken
charge of the hen-house.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Worse, an international élite, spearheaded by the United
Nations among others, and including multi-national corporations, dishonest
politicians, and activist fellow-travellers, seeks to “unite the world” under
the tyranny of a global ruling class, unelected and unaccountable. Their agenda
seeks to “transform” or “nudge” us all into becoming, at best, mere cogs in a
giant, global political machine, to be run by an élite few. Some of them,
indeed, seem to want to reduce us to the status of mere numbers in a database.
This global power grab is supported, gladly, by the political establishment.
Including many if not most national politicians, that instead of serving those
they ought to represent, choose to support agendas hostile to us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Further, today’s governments press ahead manically with tyrannical
and destructive policies like “net zero,” based on no more than lies and
scares. And the system is rigged, so ordinary people cannot obtain redress, or
even get our objections heard. Moreover, governments often disobey their own
rules, as for example over Partygate. It’s not surprising, then, that the
ethical and moral foundations of governments are crumbling. And the ruse that
governments serve and protect people is wearing increasingly thin. Indeed, an
ancient question seems to be re-surfacing in people’s minds: <i>Quis custodiet
custodes</i>? Who will guard the guardians? Who will protect us against the
“protectors?”<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The failure of trust and respect<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Governments, at all levels, have lost trust in, and respect
for, the people they are supposed to serve. Not to mention losing contact with
reality, too. They treat us as objects to be exploited, or as nothing more than
numbers in a database, which they think of as a “single source of truth.” If
they consider us to be human beings at all, they think we’re bad; so, they want
to treat us badly. And they use lies and unfounded scares as excuses to do just
that.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In return, ordinary people have lost, and are losing, trust
in and respect for governments. Governments and their hangers-on treat us as if
they hate us. And many of us are coming to feel contempt and hatred for them in
return. Increasingly, we are coming to see governments as the criminal gangs
they are. Thus, the entire basis of trust, on which government has relied since
the Enlightenment, is falling apart. This situation is not sustainable.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The failure of representation<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">There is no easy fix for these problems, even in a so-called
democracy. Today, all the mainstream political parties are bad, albeit in somewhat
different ways. They are merely different factions of the same criminal gang. So,
voting for a different lot, a different choice off the same menu, isn’t going
to help much if at all. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Most of our so-called “representatives” today fail to
represent us. They fail to fight our corner for each and every one of us, as a
true representative would do. They do not even fight for the interests of the
people of their area as a whole. Instead, a lot of them just seek to impose on
everyone the particular policies favoured by their own party, their own establishment
faction, regardless of the effects of those policies on the people they are
supposed to represent.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Many of them are deeply dishonest, too, as shown by the scandals
which crop up so regularly. For most of them, their first loyalty is to their
own careers. Their second loyalty is to their political party. Their third
loyalty is to the state, that makes possible their positions of power. The
people they are supposed to serve come, at best, a very poor fourth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">This is not to suggest that every politician is necessarily
an inhuman, criminal psychopath. A few of them do show some traces of honesty,
and even occasional touches of humanity. But these are a minority. Lord Acton
was right, when he said that power tends to corrupt.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Could a new party bring about an improvement? In the short
term, maybe – as the Brexit party, briefly, did in 2019. But on the longer
view, those at the helm of a new party will have to be extraordinarily good and
strong characters, if they are to avoid being sucked down into the corruption that
is endemic to the political state. Besides, it is very unlikely, particularly in
a first-past-the-post system like the UK, that any new party could get real power
quickly.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, I don’t expect any political party to find it easy
to reverse the globalist power-grab, whose agenda currently holds sway over
much of the ruling élite. The troubles over Brexit were like a child’s tantrum,
compared to how those battles would be!<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The failure of democracy<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">There’s more. Today’s system of sham “democracy” divides
people from each other. The victims of unjust policies feel harshly treated,
and become disaffected. Moreover, those who have been harmed by the policies of
particular parties come to hate those parties. And people – and eventually, many
people – lose all sense of affinity with all of the major parties. They (we) come
to view politics, politicians, the establishment and government with contempt
and loathing. And eventually, they (we) lose all sense of belonging, and of
fellow feeling for those that continue to support the system. Thus “democracy,”
as it exists today, ends up breaking apart the very sense of “we” that seemed
to give it legitimacy in the first place. It destroys the cohesion, the “glue”
which ought to keep a community of people together.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I myself am now way, way out on that limb. Every one of the
four major UK parties, Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green, is actively hostile to
me. I am, for my sins, a member of the Reform UK party. But it’s not like the
Brexit party in 2019, where you could <i>sense</i> that this was a different
and better animal than the other political parties, and was going to have a big
effect (and it did). So, I’m not holding my breath that Reform UK will ever be
much better.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Why democracy can never work<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">On top of this, there is a fundamental reason why democracy,
as it is conceived today, can never be workable. For “one man one vote,”
however good it may be for making decisions in a voluntary society, is not
appropriate when the people concerned are only a community.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">If 52 members of a voluntary society want to do A, and 48
want to do B, then A can be considered the general will of the society, and the
society as a whole is justified in doing A rather than B. This is what, after dishonest
and long-drawn-out attempts by political élites to stop it, eventually happened following the
Brexit referendum of 2016.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In a mere community, on the other hand, if 52 members want
A, and 48 want B, that does not give the 52 any right to over-ride the wishes
of the 48. Unless doing A or B (or both at the same time) causes objective harm
to other people, those who want to do A have the right to do A, and those who want to do B
have the right to do B. As Mahatma Gandhi put it: “In matters of conscience,
the law of the majority has no place.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">And, since the people who live in a particular geographical
area, such as the territory claimed by a state, are not a society, but only a
community, “one man one vote” is not an appropriate way to make decisions or to
resolve disputes within that community. No group of people, even if a majority,
should be able to take away any of the rights or freedoms of another group of
people, unless there is hard, objective evidence that the group to be
restrained are actually causing, or seeking to cause, harms to, or violations
of the rights or freedoms of, others.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The failure of bonding<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Next, I’ll try to put all this into some historical context.
I’ll take a look at how human societies have developed over time, and the
different kinds of inter-personal bonds which have arisen – and faded – as a
result.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">First, there are blood ties. Of which, the “nuclear family”
is by far the strongest. These have always been, and still are, important,
particularly for the bringing up of children.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Second, there are voluntary associations with others, which
people make for mutual benefit. In our hunter-gatherer days, people organized themselves
into bands, and later into settled tribes; the main benefit being the division
of labour. They were initially blood-tie based, but the bigger they got, the
less close the blood ties became.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We can also form voluntary societies of many kinds. Their
purposes can range, for example, from the performance of a common hobby, to a
business enterprise, to a society of people with similar goals and interests,
to a society of people with shared ideas and values.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Third, there are ties of culture, such as shared language,
or history, or religion, or political ideas of how groups of humans should best
be organized. These, again, can have a blood-tie element, but often do not.
People who share a language or a set of values do not always share an ancestry
or a skin colour, or vice versa. There is also a love, which many people feel,
for the land and people of their particular area. That is the love, which I
refer to as patriotism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Fourth, there are political ties, and, in particular the
“nation.” Nationalism, at its root, is an attachment to a political state. But
many people today seem to think of the nation state and its politics as the
primary force that binds the people in an area together. And too many seem to
think of politics as a replacement for and consummation of the older binding
forces, such as shared ancestry, culture, language, religion, or place of
origin or residence.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But today, things are changing. The bonds, which
historically have held groups of people together, are increasingly failing.
Ties of ancestry and race have become less and less important, as people of
different races have migrated across the world, and interbred, over the last
century and more. Indeed, there is a body of opinion that now sees those, who
find these ties important, as “racists.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Language and culture, too, are losing their power to bind.
When I walk around my area in Surrey, I am as likely to hear Polish, or
Italian, or some Romance-style language I can’t even identify, as I am to hear
English. And when I go into my local convenience store, the radio is often on in
Urdu or Bengali.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Meanwhile, religion is coming to be seen by many as
increasingly irrelevant to modern life. Migrations, ease of travel and the
Internet have made patriotism and mere physical proximity no longer the binding
forces they used to be. And politics, far from uniting people, has become
strongly divisive.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, the idea of a “social contract,” which the people residing
in a territory are implicitly assumed to have signed up to, is losing credibility.
As to democracy, our enemies have perverted the Enlightenment ideas that
ordinary people should be able to set the direction and tone of government, and
should have a full and fair say in what policies it will adopt, into the divisive
sham “democracy” we suffer under today.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It feels to me very much as if the “Age of Politics,” in
which we have been enmeshed for thousands of years, is finally drawing to a
close. I for one won’t be sad to see it go.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>A species split<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">Now, it’s time to unveil my diagnosis of the root of the problems
we suffer today. At first, it may seem to many people an outlandish idea, even
a crackpot one. But I hope that all my readers will bear with me, as I present more
and more evidence for my proposition.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I posit that the human species has, over the course of
several thousand years, divided into two sub-species. This idea is not original
with me. Indeed, Jason Alexander, from whom I got the original blueprint for my
historical perspective, wrote in one of his pamphlets, way back in 1990, of a “species
separation on the order of the Neanderthal extinction.” I am now certain that he
was right. But I can claim an advantage over him. For I have managed to
identify, explicitly, the nature of the split, and the dividing line along
which it has taken place.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Economic means versus political means<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I wrote earlier about Franz Oppenheimer’s famous distinction
between the economic means and the political means. I will quote from his book <i>The
State</i> (English translation 1922). “There are two fundamentally opposed
means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary
means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor
and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others… I propose in the
following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of
one’s own labor for the labor of others, the <i>economic means</i> for the
satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of
others will be called the <i>political means</i>.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Oppenheimer also wrote: “All world history, from primitive
times up to our own civilization, presents a single phase, a contest namely
between the economic and the political means.” And: “The state is an
organization of the political means.” He knew what was going on!<o:p></o:p></p><h3>John Locke’s view<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I will remind you, also, of the word John Locke used to
describe those, against whose crimes and predations governments, supposedly, exist
to defend us. He called them <i>degenerate</i>; a word which had then, and
still has, the meaning of “no longer of their kind.” He described them as
“varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate,
and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature and to be a noxious
creature.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">He says also, of the individual under the law of Nature: “By
which law, common to them all, he and all the rest of mankind are one
community, make up one society distinct from all other creatures.” And “were it
not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be… no
necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and
associate into lesser combinations.” So, if it hadn’t been for these degenerates
among us, we wouldn’t ever have needed political societies, or political governments.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Locke, too, understood what was going on. These degenerates had
become estranged from us human beings. Even back then, more than three centuries
ago. And they have only got worse since then. They are no longer human, but
noxious creatures. Parasites, pests or both.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Economic species versus political species<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Here is the root of the difference between the two sub-species.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">One, which I will call the <i>economic species</i> or <i>economic
animal</i>, by its nature uses Oppenheimer’s economic means to interact with
others. I also call us simply <i>human beings</i>, or sometimes <i>human beings
worth the name</i>. The preferred habitat of our species is one in which every human
individual has the maximum chance to flourish, and to become happy and prosperous.
Our natural habitat is the economic free market, supported by honest systems that
maintain peace, uphold human rights and freedoms, and deliver objective,
individual justice for all.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The other, the <i>political species</i>, <i>political animal</i>
or just <i>politicals</i>, by its nature uses Oppenheimer’s political means to
rob or to harm others. Their preferred habitat is in positions of power and
influence, direct or indirect, in a political state. Or in some other top-down organization,
such as religious, military or big-company hierarchies, or organized criminal or
terrorist gangs, or political activist groups. Their natural habitat is one
that enables them to take resources from others, and to use them for their own
purposes, or to cause harm to innocent people, or both.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The dividing line, the blade that divides <i>us</i>, the
economic species, from <i>them</i>, the political species, I dub Oppenheimer’s
Razor. <i>We</i>, by our nature, use the economic means in order to get our
needs satisfied. <i>They</i> use the political means. The two species are
physically very similar, even being able to mate with each other. But mentally,
and in preferred habitat and means of obtaining sustenance, the two are very
different. Over the centuries, and in the last few decades in particular, the
two species have diverged so far, that the political species has now become actively
parasitical on, and hostile and pestilent towards, the economic species. And we,
in our turn, are starting to push back against the predations and provocations
by our enemies.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Evidence from biology<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">There is biological evidence that new species, of birds
at least, can split off from a parent species in only a few generations. Here
is an example: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn14" name="_ednref14" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].
Given long enough, such birds can even develop different beak shapes, adapted
to their available food sources. But mental changes, such as song and mating
behaviour, can change much faster.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Is it conceivable that, over the five thousand and more
years the political state has been in existence, those on top of the governmental
apparatus may have differentiated in their behaviour from those subjected to it?
I think it is more than conceivable. Five thousand years is around 200
generations, long enough for significant changes to take place.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Evidence from history<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">That political power and influence has a tendency to become
hereditary is obvious. A very fervent Royalist, and a courtier of Charles II in
the 17<sup>th</sup> century, was Sir Winston Churchill (1620-1688). Prime
minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) was directly descended from him. Moreover,
his daughter Arabella was a mistress of James II, and a direct ancestor of
Diana Spencer, former princess of Wales. Even in the USA, a supposed republic, there
are political “dynasties.” Roosevelts, Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes, to name but
four. It happens elsewhere, too. And I’m not the only one to have noticed this
tendency: [<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_edn15" name="_ednref15" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>].<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It's worth noting also that some religions have, or have had,
hereditary priestly castes. And despite the Catholic church not having such a
caste, the Borgia family produced three popes, the Contis four (and an
antipope!) and the Medicis four. It does look as though power and influence do
tend to breed power and influence, sometimes over considerable periods of time.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Behaviour and thinking<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">But perhaps the strongest evidence for a species split comes
from examining the behaviour patterns of those on both sides of the dividing
line, and trying to gauge the thinking behind them. As a tool for doing this, I
put forward four questions to be answered for each:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo24; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->What do they (or we) promote as values and/or virtues?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo24; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->What behaviours do they (or we) tend to display?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo24; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->What do they (or we) seem to hate?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 18pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo24; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->What do they (or we) seem to be afraid of?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I shall answer these questions in order. In each case, I
will assess the human species first, and the political species second.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Values and virtues<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Historically, the ideas of virtues and values have been
closely connected. But in recent times, a distinction has grown up between the
two. Virtues are moral standards which are considered desirable. Values are practical
goals or ideals, which are considered desirable. So, virtues are ethical ideas,
while values are closer to political ones.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Each individual evolves, over time, his or her own
perceptions of virtues and values. And each individual prefers to associate
with those who, more or less, share their own perceptions.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Human virtues and values<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">We human beings, the economic species, tend to think ethically;
that is, about what is right and wrong. Thus, we think primarily in terms of
virtues, rather than values. But whatever each of us sees as a virtue, we
strive to live up to, and so to make into one of our values.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Our virtues and values vary in detail from individual to
individual. Despite this, many of us think along the same lines; we value
different variations on a similar theme. Some among us value highly the four
cardinal virtues put forward by Aristotle, and later adopted by Christianity:
prudence, justice, temperance and courage. Others add one or more of the other
virtues in his list: self-discipline, moderation, modesty, humility, generosity,
friendliness, truthfulness, honesty. Yet others may have formed an attachment
to some particular virtue or set of virtues, which they consider to be worthy
of honour.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>My own lists of virtues and values<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">I myself look at ethics more in terms of respect for others’
rights than of virtuous behaviour. Despite this, I have given my own list of
virtues: honesty, independence, truthfulness, responsibility, integrity, mutual
tolerance, mutual good faith. To which, I will add two more: conscience and co-operation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">One important note regarding mutual tolerance. Sometimes, if
the impact of someone’s actions on us are negative but small, it may be
sensible, rather than try to pursue them and get them to stop those actions, is
to accept these effects, while discounting them against any small negative
effects your actions may have on them. An example I have used in the past is:
“I’ll accept a reasonable amount of noise from your ghetto-blaster (or
motor-bike), if you’ll accept a reasonable amount of exhaust from my car in
return.” I call this attitude “civilized tolerance,” and it is a key value for
human beings worth the name.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The six ethical and organizational principles, which I gave
in the second essay of this set, can also be looked at as
six of my primary values: ethical equality, honesty and integrity, respect for
rights, judgement by behaviour, voluntary society, common-sense justice.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I gave another list of my major virtues and values in
obligation form. Obligations back-to-back with rights; you have a right, when
everyone around you follows the corresponding obligation(s). Here is my list: “Be
peaceful. Seek the facts, and tell the truth. Be honest. Strive always to
behave with justice, integrity and good faith. Be tolerant of those who are
tolerant towards you. Respect the rights and freedoms of those who respect your
equal rights and freedoms. Don’t interfere in other people’s business without a
very good, objective reason. And take responsibility for the effects of your
voluntary actions on others.” To which, I will now add: Practise what you
preach.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I will also add here John Locke’s description of the natural law
for human beings: “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Then there is a list, which I have given many times, of what
I call “Enlightenment values.” I make no apologies for repeating it once more.
“The use and celebration of human reason. Rational inquiry, and the pursuit of
science. Greater tolerance in religion. Individual liberty and independence;
freedom of thought and action. The pursuit of happiness. Natural rights,
natural equality of all human beings, and human dignity. The idea that society
exists for the individual, not the individual for society. Constitutional
government, for the benefit of, and with the consent of, the governed. The rule
of law; that is, those with government power, such as lawmakers, law
enforcement officials and judges, should have to obey the same rules as
everyone else. An ideal of justice which, <i>per</i> Kant, allows that ‘the
freedom of the will of each can coexist together with the freedom of everyone
in accordance with a universal law.’ A desire for human progress, and a
rational optimism for the future.” These are the values, which have enabled us
to build human industrial civilization over more than 250 years.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>The political species’ values<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The political species today, it seems, think more in terms
of values than of virtues. They think in political terms, of desired goals and “the
art of the possible,” rather than in terms of ethics, what is right and
virtuous, or wrong and despicable. That means that they will often seek to
enforce their own values on others, even against the values and the wills of
those others. And they are happy to use threats of violence, or even actual
violence, to do so. Tolerance of others, when those others’ desires go against
their agendas, is no part of their value system.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">“Sustainability” (ability to endure into the future) seems
to them to be a prime value today. Although it is ironic that, as shown recently
in Sri Lanka, policies made in the name of sustainability have proved not to be
sustainable. They seem to value re-cycling, to the point where it becomes
almost a religion. “Safety” and “security” are also value buzz-words they like
to use frequently; even when they come at a high cost in human rights, freedoms
or dignity. They also claim to value “health.” But this seems to be little more
than a ruse to scapegoat people like the obese, who don’t match criteria the
politicals perceive as ideal; or to “justify” bad policies like compulsory
COVID vaccination.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They value “low impact” or “low footprint” on the world
outside. Which they like to enforce through ever-tightening, collective “targets”
and “limits.” And economically, they value “zero growth” or even “de-growth.” These
are some of the “values,” if you will pardon the scare quotes, of the fifth
counter-revolution, that seeks to suppress our rights, freedoms, economy,
prosperity, and much else. These dubious “values” are ultra-conservative. They
are opposed to change of any kind to the <i>status quo</i>, except when it pushes
us human beings down harder under the boot of oppression. As George Orwell put
it, they want to arrest progress and freeze history at a certain moment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The one kind of change they do seem interested in is “transformation.” They want to “transform societies” into something that is quite the opposite of any civilization worth the name. And they want to “nudge” and “transform” us human beings into something quite foreign to humanity. Telling us, for example, that “we’ll own nothing, and we’ll be happy.”</p><p class="MsoNormal">Then there are “values,” also deserving of scare quotes, which they have inherited from the fourth counter-revolution. These are collectivism, and political ideologies derived from it, such as socialism, conservatism, communism, nationalism and fascism. And now, their modern counterparts, regionalism (such as the EU), globalism and internationalism.</p><p class="MsoNormal">They seem to see politics and “unity” as good things, too. They like mantras such as “we’re all in this together.” But they usually leave it unsaid – and often unclear – exactly who “we” are. A nation? A state? A political party? Their own “in crowd?”</p><div>The only things they seem to consider virtues are
selflessness or altruism, and political correctness. Though they do like to
“virtue signal” glib, meaningless phrases like “zero emissions.” Those that
virtue signal, I like to say, are showing their lack of real virtues.</div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They seem to think that “the planet,” wildlife, and “protection
for habitats and ecosystems” are more deserving of concern than human beings. Yet
no lion or giraffe, for example, would ever put the interests of another species
ahead of the interests of its own! Raising the question, are those that put
“higher causes” above human beings, actually human beings?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Further, they value something they call “nature,” but they
do not value <i>human</i> nature. They say we should live in harmony with
nature; but they do not seem to appreciate that a human being, who lives in
harmony with <i>human</i> nature, is already living in harmony with nature.
Some of them have gone so far as to castigate human beings as a “blight on the
planet!” (To which my usual response is, “Yes, you’re right. <i>You’re</i> a
blight on the planet.”)<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Not far different is their meme that “there are too many of
us.” This seems to mean that, for their tastes, there are too many human beings
on our planet. Now, I find that meme highly debatable. For more human beings
means more productive people, and potentially bigger markets for other
productive people. I do worry, though, that this meme may be tied in with their
green policies to disrupt farming, as in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands. Anyone
that wants to make food scarcer and more expensive for other people is, without
doubt, a pest.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It is, however, true that some parts of the world – big
cities – are sufficiently densely populated to be uncomfortable. We should,
perhaps, spread ourselves out a bit more; but this will require a system under
which land ownership is not concentrated predominantly in the hands of a small élite. In any case, my
response to “there are too many of us” is similar to the above. “Yes, you’re
right; there are too many of <i>you</i>!”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They also seem to think that women are superior to men, and
indigenous cultures to Western industrial ones. Moreover, they have bizarre ideas
of “equality” and “justice,” both of which seem to mean just what they want
them to mean, and yet which they want to use to “justify” their bad political
policies.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In summary, I find that the “values” professed by the
political species seem rather strange, and many of them are very unpleasant and
anti-human.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>How we human beings behave<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">No human being is perfect. All of us have bad moments occasionally,
particularly when we are under attack, or feel threatened. But we learn, over
time, how to minimize the negative effects on others of our mistakes and our
losses of self-control.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We avoid, wherever we can, causing harm to our fellow human
beings. Indeed, no human being worth the name, in his or her right mind, would
ever intentionally harm another human being without good and provable reason.
Moreover, when we do cause unjust harm to a human being, we feel a
responsibility to compensate them if we possibly can. And, while all life
involves taking risks of one kind or another, we try to avoid imposing
unreasonable risks on others. We aim, as far as we can, to take only <i>good</i>
risks.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">As to positives, we strive to behave in ways that are
natural to human beings. We try to behave convivially, that is, in ways that
make us fit to be lived with. That said, each of us is an individual; and each
of us must strive to live our own life in our own way.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We are naturally peaceful, truthful, honest, straightforward
and respectful of the rights and freedoms of our fellow human beings. We try to
act in good faith. If we do preach to others about some matter, we always strive
to practise ourselves whatever it is that we preach for others. We strive to be
economically productive, and not to let ourselves become a drain on others. We
aim to solve problems, rather than creating or amplifying problems. We aim to
be constructive, rather than destructive.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We do not seek to use politics, either to enrich ourselves
or our friends, or unjustly to harm anyone. If we do take any part in politics,
we do so only in self-defence, or in seeking justice, or perhaps in a genuine
and honest attempt to make the world a better place for all human beings worth
the name.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>How the political species behave<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The political species, in complete contrast, tend to behave
in ways that reflect the traits of the political state, to whose continued
existence and power they are so closely wedded. Not all of them, it is fair to
say, necessarily show all of these traits. But virtually all of them show some of
them, at least. And many show an increasing tendency with time towards
behaviours that are more and more unethical, and less and less respectful of
rights and freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The political species behave arrogantly; they think they
have a right to tell other people what to do. Many of them seem to have a
strong, innate desire to control other people. And they are inconsiderate; they
want to control people, regardless of what their victims think or want. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They are very often intolerant, too. For example, in their
desire to force us to reduce emissions of some gas they consider “bad” again
and again towards zero. Rather than considering the question: What would be the
optimal level of these emissions, at which we could live together without
unreasonably impinging on each other’s lives? The political species have no
idea at all of what I call “civilized tolerance.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They like to obstruct our progress, and to meddle in our
lives. They are often reckless, and willing to subject us to risks, from which they
may get gains, but we do not. They behave with envy and hatred. They
particularly envy and hate those among us human beings, who are good at what we
do. They hate us for our virtues.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They show no concern for the effects of their actions on
others, and do not seem to care about the costs they impose on their victims. They
like to move the goalposts. And they are remorseless.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They are greedy; they think they have an entitlement to
resources which rightly belong to other people. They take as much from others
as they think they can get away with, and always want more. They are parasites
on us human beings. Moreover, they often waste the resources they take. Or they
use the resources to attack innocent people, and cause harm, pain or
inconvenience to them. Those that do these things behave towards us human
beings as pests.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They are profoundly dishonest. They will lie, or evade
important questions, as readily as tell the truth. They easily become corrupt,
or act in bad faith. They like to create problems where none exist, or to scare
people, or to paint matters as worse than they are. They will use tricks to
mislead people, or to cover up, hide or obfuscate the facts. They seek to
suppress the truth, and often deny facts and reality when the facts do not
support their agendas. They bullshit. They seek to instil false guilt in people
who are innocent of any real wrongdoing.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They are untrustworthy. They are often selfish. They are
frequently aggressive or destructive. They are relentless. And they seek to
evade responsibility for the effects of their actions on others.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They are very often hypocrites. They do not even attempt to
practise what they preach. They want to force others to make sacrifices, yet
are not willing to make any of those sacrifices themselves.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, they like to project their own failings on to
others. For example, they call those of us, who do not accept the green
accusations, “deniers.” When <i>they</i> are the ones that are denying reality!
They call humans a “blight on the planet,” when it is they themselves that are
the blight. And they smear us as bad people, whereas it is they themselves that
are bad.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Hatreds and fears<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">To work out what or who an individual hates or fears is not
always easy. It requires first observing their behaviour, then trying to assess
their state of mind.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But there is a general relation between values (or virtues)
and hatreds, which can help with this process. For whatever or whoever
obstructs one of your values, or prevents you from putting into practice one of
your virtues, is a good candidate for displeasure or worse. And your fears may
well include the consequences of the obstructions, and the prospect of more.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>What we human beings hate<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Generally, what we human beings tend to hate are: Things
that cause us pain, whether physical, mental or financial. Things that restrict
us from living our lives to the full. And those individuals and organizations that
cause us pain, or lay on us restrictions. One thing we hate very strongly,
perhaps more strongly than anything else, is being treated unjustly.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We feel these hatreds most strongly when we as individuals
are the victims; but we also feel them at second hand, when our fellow human
beings are the sufferers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">We tend to hate behaviours like those the politicals show
towards us. And, over time, we come to feel hatred and contempt for those that
practise these behaviours. So, those that do these things to us become our
enemies.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>What the political species hate<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The political species’ hatreds, so it seems, are different
in kind from ours. They like to pick on, and target, scapegoats. Shown, for
example, by the oppression of Jews and other racial or religious groups in very
many places and times, or of the <i>kulaks</i> by Stalin, or of Cambodian city
dwellers and middle classes by Pol Pot. They also hate anyone that tries to
resist their schemes, or to speak up against them. And often, they hate us
human beings for our virtues.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">One of the political species’ main desires today is to
suppress our economy. So, it isn’t surprising that a lot of the hatreds they
show are in the economic area. They hate industry. I don’t just mean industry
in the sense of making goods in factories, but in a more general sense of <i>being
industrious</i>. They seem to have a hatred for people who are more than
averagely productive, or who develop their talents to the full. I wonder
whether this may be, partly at least, due to envy? For most politicals are not,
as individuals, economically productive. They also tend to hate excellence, and
people who perform excellently. You can see this in the school playground,
where bullies often target the brightest children.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">As far as the rewards of industry are concerned, the
political species hate earned success, and the pleasures which can flow from
that success. They don’t object to prosperity in itself, since they want it for
themselves; it is <i>earned</i> prosperity that they hate. For this reason,
they dislike the free market, and want to regulate it to benefit themselves and
their mates.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Their attitudes to “capitalism” and “profits” are rather
odd. They condemn capitalism as greedy, exploitative and leading to inequality.
Yet at the same time, they are happy when they themselves, or their cronies,
become rich by exploiting the capitalist system. And, while they often like to
use “profit” as a pejorative, they don’t mind profits at all when they accrue
to them. They pooh-pooh earned profit, but they think profiteering is just
fine.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Being by their nature collectivist, the political species
show a very strong hatred of individuality and independence, and of those who
possess these traits. If you wonder why they have used IR35 to hammer people as
diverse as software consultants and lorry drivers, it is down to their hatred
of independent people. And their witch-hunt against our cars, I think, is also
driven at its roots by their hatred of independence and individuality. They
hate us for wanting to be in control over when, where and how we travel.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They hate small business people, too; as shown for example
by draconian COVID-19 restrictions, which hit small businesses harder than
anyone else. More generally, they want to suppress or destroy the habitat which
we human beings need in order to flourish; peace, justice, human rights, and
freedom of choice and action.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Their ultra-conservatism leads them to be against all change,
unless it is controlled by them. It leads them to esteem static values like “safety,”
“security” and “sustainability,” over and above dynamism, the desire for new
discoveries, and the progress which is natural to human beings. It also leads
them to an all but worshipping view of the political state, the bulwark of the
existing order. And it leads them to seek to use heavy taxes, bad laws and wars
as means towards promoting their own interests, and harming those they choose
as their scapegoats.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Further, in order to maintain the doublethink that underlies
their world-view, they have to deny reality. They hate objectivity, and people
who demand evidence for their claims. They hate, and deny, facts which
contradict their narratives; while at the same time labelling those, who
present these facts, as “deniers,” “disinformers” or worse. And they seek to
pervert science into a tool to “justify” their narratives, while suppressing
honest, objective science. Instead of formulating evidence-based policy, they
like to fabricate policy-based evidence.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In short, the political species hate the very values which
make us human beings, such as reason, independence, individual freedom and economic
productivity. They hate us for our virtues. They hate humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>What we human beings fear<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">We human beings tend to fear, for the most part, much the
same things that we hate. Pain of various kinds, impositions, restrictions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But some of our worst fears – or, at least, of mine – are
for the future we face, if there is not radical change in the political system
very soon. Widespread poverty, caused by hateful political policies. Loss of yet
more human rights and freedoms, leading to inability to live our lives with the
dignity appropriate to human beings. Innocent people being singled out for
mistreatment or punishment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But there are also fears about what we will need to do in
order to bring about the radical change we need. Will we need to build, and to take
part in, massive civil disobedience? Will we need to prepare ourselves against
physical or financial attacks, and to defend against those attacks? Will matters
escalate so far as to reach civil war of the people against the politicals?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In the short term, the future looks bleak. Yet, if we are to
get through this perilous time into the better world we deserve, we have to
make change – radical change – for the better.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Three things, at least, we must never give up on. One, we
must <i>never lose hope</i>. As Abraham Lincoln put it, quoting an ancient sage:
“This, too, shall pass away.” Two, our enemies have tried, and are trying, to
destroy our natural habitat. We should, therefore, have no qualms at all about
destroying <i>their</i> preferred habitat, the state and its politics. They
don’t care about <i>our</i> environment; so, we should neither feel nor show
any concern for theirs. And third, we must never let even a single one of our
enemies get away with anything.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>What the political species fear<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">The political species themselves, of course, have their own
fears. I do not have direct access to their minds; so, I have to infer what
they fear from how they behave and what they say.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">They fear, I think, a change in the climate. By this, I
don’t mean a change in the average of global weather. I think they fear,
perhaps more than anything else, a change in the <i>mental</i> climate among
human beings. I think such a change already began, decades ago. Around the mid-1990s,
I first sensed a whiff of mental “sea-change,” which I perceived as “things can
be thought now, which could not have been thought before.” I wonder if our
enemies fear such a change? That might explain why “climate change” is such a
big deal to them, and why they are so completely blind to the fact that it
isn’t a problem in reality.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I also think they fear financial collapse. In particular,
financial collapse <i>of the state</i>. The state is a parasite and a pest; it
cannot create wealth, only feed off it and misuse it. Might they have divined,
perhaps, that the political system, on which their entire privileged, parasitic
way of life depends, is not sustainable? That the state is, ethically, already
bankrupt; and perilously close to financial bankruptcy, too? And that, on its
present course, it will soon fail? Such a sense of imminent bankruptcy could
easily explain why so much that states and governments do today is directed
towards getting in more, more, and more “revenue” for their state.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">If you wonder why successive UK governments have encouraged
huge numbers of immigrants, enough to raise the population by 20 per cent in 20
years, might it be, perhaps, to secure a tax base for the future, as the
population continues to age? If you wonder why they tax us more and more harshly,
and for more and more dubious “reasons,” might it be because they fear that the state is so over-stretched, that the next economic recession may take it, and so the entire political order,
with it?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Another fear they seem to have, closely related to the
“climate change” one, is <i>fear of the truth coming out</i>. The élites, so it seems, feel
uncomfortable and insecure. When questioned, they can’t, or won’t, respond with
straight answers. When invited to debate, they ignore or refuse the invitation.
When criticized or caught out, they never take in the criticism, never correct
their story, and never admit they were wrong. Do they feel that allowing free
speech and free debate will undermine their positions? Could this be the
motivation, not only for the “counter-disinformation unit” and the draconian
“on-line safety” bill, but also for the machinations against Andrew Bridgen MP?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It is well said that “there is no smoke without fire.” There
are now so many skeletons in the political species’ closet, that discovery is
inevitable if they continue to allow truths to be spread. And as and when these
skeletal truths come out in a manner sufficiently detailed and credible to
persuade very many people, then our enemies the political species will be seen
as the degenerates, the parasites and pests, that they are. That, surely, is
something they will want to do almost anything to avoid. After all, those that, again and again, can’t, or won’t, behave as human beings cannot reasonably expect to be treated
as human beings.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">But I’ve left the most fascinating question of all till
last. It’s plain that there is no substance at all to our enemies’ claims of
humans causing “a sixth mass extinction,” or anything like it. So, why are they
so concerned about <i>species</i> <i>extinction</i>? And why do they keep on
telling us that non-problems like “climate change” are <i>existential</i>? Why
does it look as if, from their point of view, just about everything is a
catastrophe? Could it be, that there really <i>is</i> a crisis, not in the
weather or the climate, but inside our enemies’ minds? Could it be, that they
already know that they have diverged from humanity, on to a path that is
rapidly coming to a dead end? <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Could their green agendas and their push to destroy our
industrial civilization be driven, perhaps, by more than just hatred of
humanity and of the economic means? Could the political species, perhaps, have become aware that if they
allow us to create a free, just world without states or politics, <i>they</i>
will be doomed to go the same way as the Neanderthals? For you can’t build any worthwhile
civilization out of individuals, like the politicals, that are naturally
dishonest towards others.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I think they’re scared. I think they really <i>are</i>
scared. It looks to me as if they fear change in the mental climate. They fear the
future. They fear the truth. And they fear <i>us</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>The expansion of the political species<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">In recent decades, the number of individuals showing the
behaviour traits of the political species has grown greatly. It looks as if the
political species have set out, quite deliberately, to attract to their way of
life as many susceptible individuals as they can.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Today, the political species are not just in evidence in
parliaments, government bureaucracies and “the corridors of power.” They do,
however, include all the expected suspects. They include the great majority of politicians.
Many government employees. The dishonest among police and soldiers. Most of the
political establishment, and those that are well connected with it. And many in
church hierarchies, too; let’s not forget that institutional religion and the
church were the products of our enemies’ second counter-revolution, just as politics and the state were the products of the first.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The malign influence of the political species has also
extended to: Advisors, influencers and officials, both in government and in
“non-governmental organizations.” Technocrats and other “experts.” Quangos,
“public-private initiatives,” and quaintly named “civil society organizations.”
The financial and big-business élites,
including many greedy or politicized company bosses. Big Pharma, Big Green, Big
Tech. Much of the mainstream media. Many academics. Activists of many different
hues. And rich individuals and “celebrities” with their own political goals, or
with narcissistic tendencies, or both.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">With hindsight, I find it not so surprising that the
politicals have managed to corrupt big business. For several of the
Machiavellian and psychopathic traits, that I listed above, are also in
evidence among many of those at the top of larger businesses. It is well known
that you often find psychopaths, not just in prisons, but also in boardrooms.
And Machiavellian behaviours seem to be second nature to many politicians and
other government officials.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Looking back through my life, I have witnessed some of these
corruptions at first hand. By the mid-1980s, the politicking going on inside
big companies was obvious. I first experienced it at a client in the financial
sector, and it wasn’t nice. By the early 1990s, when doing bid management for a
computer systems company, I encountered attitudes and behaviours in potential
client companies, which didn’t seem to make commercial, or any other kind of,
sense. I know now that was the visible side of politicking and corruption.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The politicals have been able to extend their influence, and
to corrupt people who were not originally part of the establishment, by a
variety of means. By carrots – also known as crossing palms with silver, that
silver having been taken from taxpayers. By sticks – by threatening people,
particularly company bosses, with bad consequences if they fail to fall in line
with the goals of the politicals. And by propaganda – by overwhelming the minds
of those who are not mentally strong enough to resist corruption. As a result,
there is a far higher proportion of parasites and pests among the political
élites, and among those that associate with them, than there are in the
population as a whole.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">On top of all these, there is the globalist or
internationalist wing of the political species. You will find many parasites
and pests in the United Nations and its agencies. In the European Union and its
hangers-on. In the World Bank, World Economic Forum and International Monetary
Fund. And in other globalist and internationalist organizations, too. Such as
the World Wildlife Fund, World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization, and many more.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">All this being said, though, the political species in the
world today forms only a small fraction of the total world population. We human
beings still outnumber them by a factor of many to one. That should, I hope,
prove decisive in the end.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Closing arguments<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">To sum up my evidence. There are significant differences
between the virtues and values, behaviour traits, and apparent hatreds and
fears of human beings and of politicals.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Virtues and values<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Human beings tend to think in terms of moral goals or
virtues, whereas politicals favour values, and the political goals associated
with them. Human beings seek to try to live their virtues, and turn them into
values; but politicals seek to impose their values on others.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Behaviours<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Human beings tend to be naturally peaceful, truthful, honest,
straightforward and respectful of the rights of other human beings. We also
strive to act in good faith. The great majority of human beings worth the name
are also prepared to “live and let live” in their dealings with their fellows,
and many actually manage to live up to this standard in practice.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">In complete contrast, politicals often behave very badly
towards others. They indulge in lies, dishonesty, deception, arrogance,
hypocrisy, irresponsibility, evasion of accountability, aggression,
recklessness towards others, intolerance, bad faith, and violations of human
rights and freedoms.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Hatreds<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">Human beings tend to hate most of all those things and
individuals – including politicals and their machinations – that cause harm to
themselves, or to their fellow human beings.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The political species, on the other hand, like to pick on
scapegoats, and to do hateful things to them. They hate change, unless they are
in control of it. They hate facts, truth and objectivity. They hate industry,
excellence, earned success, individuality and independence. They hate us for
our virtues. They hate humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Fears<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">We human beings, broadly, fear the same things we hate.
Including the effects of the policies the politicals have imposed on us, are
imposing on us, and are seeking to impose on us in the future.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Politicals, on the other hand, fear “climate change,” of
whatever kind. They fear that the state that succours them may collapse,
perhaps financially, perhaps for other reasons. They fear the truth coming out
into the open. And they seem to fear “existential” threats, and even “extinction!”<o:p></o:p></p><h3>Traitors to humanity<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal">For myself, I have come to see our enemies, the political
species, as nothing less than traitors to humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Those that promote, actively support, help to make, or voluntarily
co-operate with bad and unjust political policies, such as “net zero,” are
traitors to human civilization and prosperity. And those that promote, support,
carry out or condone violations of the human rights of innocent people,
including re-distributory or confiscatory taxation, are traitors to humanity as
a whole. We have no more reason to feel, or to show, concern or compassion for
them, than Jews would have had to show the same for nazis. They deserve to be
kicked out of human civilization, and denied all its benefits.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Further, those that put their political ideology, or their particular
brand of religion, or the planet, or “nature,” above the interests of human
beings, are traitors to the human species. They are not fit to be accepted into
any community of human beings worth the name.<o:p></o:p></p><h3>To sum up my thesis<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="break-after: avoid; mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">There is, in my mind, no doubt at all that the human
species has now split into two sub-species, with two completely different sets
of natural behaviours. One sub-species naturally uses Franz Oppenheimer’s
economic means, the equivalent exchange of one’s own labour for the labour of
others. This species is <i>us</i>, the human beings worth the name.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The other sub-species, by its nature, uses the political
means, the unrequited appropriation of the labour of others. They are the
parasites and pests, that cause virtually all the troubles in the world. The
parasites use political power to enrich themselves and their cronies. The pests
use political power to hurt people they don’t like. That species, the political
species, is <i>them</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The behaviours of the political species can be summarized in
one word: Machiavellian. Their habits check many of the boxes generally
associated with psychopaths. Lies and half-truths, dishonesty, deception,
arrogance, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, evasion of accountability, aggression,
recklessness towards others, intolerance, bad faith, and violations of human
rights and freedoms. In contrast, we human beings are naturally peaceful,
truthful, honest, straightforward and respectful of the rights and freedoms of
our fellow human beings.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The dividing line between the two, I call Oppenheimer’s
Razor. One species, human beings worth the name, are economic animals. The other
species, the parasites and pests, are political animals. Human beings are
naturally honest, and strive to act in good faith. The political species are
naturally dishonest, and very often act in bad faith. The two can no longer be
regarded as a single species. To mis-quote George Orwell: “humans good,
politicals bad!”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Our enemies have been the beneficiaries of a bad political system,
that instead of favouring honest, productive human beings, has favoured the
most dishonest and corrupt. Today, they are doing everything in their power to
keep this system going, at the expense of, and to the hurt of, all human beings
worth the name. We must bring down the politicals, and the system that supports
them, before they succeed in bringing us down to their level.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I rest my case, dear readers.<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal">It does seem to me that many of our enemies have left their
senses. I am reminded of the old saw “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they
first make mad,” anticipated by Sophocles in the form: “evil appears as good in
the minds of those whom god leads to destruction.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Examples of their madnesses include: The perversion of the natural human urge to take control of our surroundings, into an un-natural urge to control us human beings. The sheer recklessness and unfeasibility of projects like Net Zero. The increasing levels of cover-up, in order to avoid doing any objective cost-benefit or risk-benefit analysis on such projects. The arrogant perversion of the precautionary principle into a tool for tyranny. The whitewashing of real wrongdoings, as in the Climategate inquiries. The level of unreasoning fear shown in some of their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The constant bombardment with lies and scares. The constant moving of goalposts. The widespread violations of basic human rights, such as privacy and freedom of speech. The arrogant and hypocritical breaking by government of laws they themselves made. And the suppression and “cancelling” of dissenting voices; suggesting that, like the Catholic church with Galileo, they are unable to provide adequate answers to the dissenters’ arguments.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Now, I am no believer in gods, either singular or plural.
And yet, this old saw does provide me with some reasons for optimism, and even
hope. If our enemies are as sick in their minds and as desperate as I suspect
they may be, then our path to a better future may turn out to be quite a lot easier
than it appears at first sight.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">How to make that happen? And where do we go from there? As
Michael Ende has put it: “But that is another story and shall be told another
time.”</p><div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19461129.html">http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19461129.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2021/11/13/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests/">https://libertarianism.uk/2021/11/13/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2022/12/17/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-two/">https://libertarianism.uk/2022/12/17/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-two/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/01/18/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-three-my-liberty-philosophy/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/01/18/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-three-my-liberty-philosophy/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/12/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-two-where-we-are-in-the-uk-today/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/12/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-two-where-we-are-in-the-uk-today/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/14/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-four-the-back-story-since-1992/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/14/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-four-the-back-story-since-1992/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-five-the-case-of-the-missing-cost-benefit-analysis/">https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-five-the-case-of-the-missing-cost-benefit-analysis/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn8">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-12-13/debates/EAB2E8A2-A721-47DD-A79C-4EFD10F10C2D/VaccinesPotentialHarms">https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-12-13/debates/EAB2E8A2-A721-47DD-A79C-4EFD10F10C2D/VaccinesPotentialHarms</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn9">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Ministry-of-Truth-Big-Brother-Watch-290123.pdf">https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Ministry-of-Truth-Big-Brother-Watch-290123.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn10">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/09/covid-disinformation-unit-hourly-tech-lockdown-dissent/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/09/covid-disinformation-unit-hourly-tech-lockdown-dissent/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn11">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://www.gbnews.com/politics/molly-kingsley-government-covid-tracking-counter-disinformation-unit">https://www.gbnews.com/politics/molly-kingsley-government-covid-tracking-counter-disinformation-unit</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn12">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://www.bcs.org/articles-opinion-and-research/the-online-safety-bill-where-are-we-as-the-bill-reaches-the-lords/">https://www.bcs.org/articles-opinion-and-research/the-online-safety-bill-where-are-we-as-the-bill-reaches-the-lords/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn13">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref13" name="_edn13" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/244952/tech-mandated-online-safety-bill-could/">https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/244952/tech-mandated-online-safety-bill-could/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn14">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref14" name="_edn14" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/11/27/study-darwins-finches-reveals-new-species-can-develop-little-two-generations">https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/11/27/study-darwins-finches-reveals-new-species-can-develop-little-two-generations</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn15">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/docs/lib/hcs2/tttbocftpap-4-new.docx#_ednref15" name="_edn15" title=""></a>[<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>]
<a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/why-many-republics-love-their-political-dynasties-1.10966">https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/why-many-republics-love-their-political-dynasties-1.10966</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><div id="edn15" style="mso-element: endnote;">
</div>
</div>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-87992196116412097762023-06-09T17:19:00.004+01:002023-06-09T17:23:03.601+01:00The most beautiful English summer day I can remember<p>A month ago today, I reached my 70<sup>th</sup> birthday. To
celebrate it, I went for a week-end in Wiltshire, but the weather was awful.
Bands of heavy showers came, one after another, to kill any chance of a decent
walk in my favourite countryside, the Marlborough Downs.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Yesterday, June 8<sup>th</sup>, 2023 – on the other hand –
I enjoyed the most beautiful summer day I have experienced in my 70 years. Here
are some of the photos I took within 3 miles of home.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinLjzX7eNDKvaw7S8zvdy9qTud25Kj7Ae37s5OETIE6JEYb4uTaf8fXaHVTQneU4zaXoco3HPdIJ0uiML8OmkSR-NE8FJdRLkuc62cUUzrxMPb8EW-_iVCbzUbRUxyZ14EJbX_55GRTlb4/s5184/IMG_0915.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinLjzX7eNDKvaw7S8zvdy9qTud25Kj7Ae37s5OETIE6JEYb4uTaf8fXaHVTQneU4zaXoco3HPdIJ0uiML8OmkSR-NE8FJdRLkuc62cUUzrxMPb8EW-_iVCbzUbRUxyZ14EJbX_55GRTlb4/w400-h300/IMG_0915.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">An army marches on
its stomach</p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguDiaMgDTzM85T-KjN0sXJeLowXt7MTqukH5RT5uDc9-l58Hyq_PIRuwPMsPDmyPWPopMjx3SUUv6RrYaeSMuf4wCNGOanp1F3VZ4MnHACjymC2I0veIPnugcuM2YMBcJ9Nt20TmDcUoKYxSwk_Qqi4IOQdp-D_G-q6bTWtzKJ6wUc5CrnTnar1uvN4g/s5184/IMG_0918.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguDiaMgDTzM85T-KjN0sXJeLowXt7MTqukH5RT5uDc9-l58Hyq_PIRuwPMsPDmyPWPopMjx3SUUv6RrYaeSMuf4wCNGOanp1F3VZ4MnHACjymC2I0veIPnugcuM2YMBcJ9Nt20TmDcUoKYxSwk_Qqi4IOQdp-D_G-q6bTWtzKJ6wUc5CrnTnar1uvN4g/w400-h300/IMG_0918.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">They marched them
up to the top of the hill, and they marched them down again</p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNEUXfFlL7yc2A-POwS_R6ecacIcansN4RNmBiULAlO881BbmICDe6i6vX3LqTb0DW1F-D1j74Yffay_bD3Gr-MseIrSDfOw_b_0f6_1vRsUcnIZqxe6LwwXXem9J-p2tsprLWAcax1NRcX-USHi4XNo-Krp9Yc0n4ETBojpoCmkdEJD3yiXQUnDPBZw/s5184/IMG_0919.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNEUXfFlL7yc2A-POwS_R6ecacIcansN4RNmBiULAlO881BbmICDe6i6vX3LqTb0DW1F-D1j74Yffay_bD3Gr-MseIrSDfOw_b_0f6_1vRsUcnIZqxe6LwwXXem9J-p2tsprLWAcax1NRcX-USHi4XNo-Krp9Yc0n4ETBojpoCmkdEJD3yiXQUnDPBZw/w400-h300/IMG_0919.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Compare this with 10 months ago:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEMVqI0dczyYfI9ukyh0TCZlCMDwf3I0iIxgvCakX8S5cGEiwS1oMbd2lsf3X3BIlAXJMSnJvuckZ3O6EHV_zYLMwPUAHOg8xsQeccn9hVvS-GZyFuql4WBbu-sI1R1KHgfX3cgRSbP6sekWkHAqxdvvfZ2Xwiv2hkHwYCK6tcg6FOLGE4pHEOT059Qg/s5184/IMG_0842.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEMVqI0dczyYfI9ukyh0TCZlCMDwf3I0iIxgvCakX8S5cGEiwS1oMbd2lsf3X3BIlAXJMSnJvuckZ3O6EHV_zYLMwPUAHOg8xsQeccn9hVvS-GZyFuql4WBbu-sI1R1KHgfX3cgRSbP6sekWkHAqxdvvfZ2Xwiv2hkHwYCK6tcg6FOLGE4pHEOT059Qg/w400-h300/IMG_0842.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p class="MsoBodyText"><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjku5hPPRaIeWmCcDCv-ZvCHAlwDMv2c4Ml6C80ZfmZxZw6RZCAlLgudb4l1pCXKdUbzZeul-nencekNBHvJ2CkK5ffSIBWNOU_wvIOcIM1iXSrtdUM2yzIOioMG1L47wBbqtVOjM5CnJEh6iLJEKQWcIt9wnijlj3aWZluK0W847Jy5Il-GbG93kHn1g/s5184/IMG_0920.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjku5hPPRaIeWmCcDCv-ZvCHAlwDMv2c4Ml6C80ZfmZxZw6RZCAlLgudb4l1pCXKdUbzZeul-nencekNBHvJ2CkK5ffSIBWNOU_wvIOcIM1iXSrtdUM2yzIOioMG1L47wBbqtVOjM5CnJEh6iLJEKQWcIt9wnijlj3aWZluK0W847Jy5Il-GbG93kHn1g/w400-h300/IMG_0920.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">The Wey goes ever
on and on…</p><p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga8BZO5FZIKr4d9PcFKtSbr9HUKH_Oz59B3kw2vplbvYDoz-N3kYzv5VxqFIZK75APHGAnfZ5aBvnxiOTWIGSOCp8UCWe_TVO6kr_MAid4zByLbS2BqNBMr4D6MojQ_gV9wwsGkgSQwto2Km5VuBhhRRskKL1hii7N_CW-Pe2p8xfOnR90ipkdeIpi6w/s5184/IMG_0923.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga8BZO5FZIKr4d9PcFKtSbr9HUKH_Oz59B3kw2vplbvYDoz-N3kYzv5VxqFIZK75APHGAnfZ5aBvnxiOTWIGSOCp8UCWe_TVO6kr_MAid4zByLbS2BqNBMr4D6MojQ_gV9wwsGkgSQwto2Km5VuBhhRRskKL1hii7N_CW-Pe2p8xfOnR90ipkdeIpi6w/w400-h300/IMG_0923.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">A bridge over
untroubled waters<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhE0I4_NbeF-RC1ifrEu1jXSG4L1Ez0BlMhnRSuFOM_5BAt4RJ4vGE_gW536HhbiOW6OQ4sHxy4kvDVo3IJsAIfGcRj8-I6khRBaM5a_KIKjzO39ZB5eCroXFiq3qTmpq9OBsHToGMja3x5-W5p9qOEW6rW6ISenC0Q5iu56ykqy1fWLv9se21HFE1B7Q/s5184/IMG_0924.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhE0I4_NbeF-RC1ifrEu1jXSG4L1Ez0BlMhnRSuFOM_5BAt4RJ4vGE_gW536HhbiOW6OQ4sHxy4kvDVo3IJsAIfGcRj8-I6khRBaM5a_KIKjzO39ZB5eCroXFiq3qTmpq9OBsHToGMja3x5-W5p9qOEW6rW6ISenC0Q5iu56ykqy1fWLv9se21HFE1B7Q/w400-h300/IMG_0924.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">I worked in the
building on the left more than 35 years ago<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfiF2fiU0wxFPHTxdsEdcyUuv7zkFUAc-AIemyacxxWtfU8WorUQMoi8NUgKKvTTiMVI52DaltC57yPqSr8kBjyi8NqlfF0vwBrOd8PhvdVGO9qLGlBRlxRFHDZwjvOMTg9fQcZ5Jwa25SHEq3Yo1zrSwSqQlbe1dirWDQsIuB1rUYEpblEg1plwxXpA/s5184/IMG_0926.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfiF2fiU0wxFPHTxdsEdcyUuv7zkFUAc-AIemyacxxWtfU8WorUQMoi8NUgKKvTTiMVI52DaltC57yPqSr8kBjyi8NqlfF0vwBrOd8PhvdVGO9qLGlBRlxRFHDZwjvOMTg9fQcZ5Jwa25SHEq3Yo1zrSwSqQlbe1dirWDQsIuB1rUYEpblEg1plwxXpA/w400-h300/IMG_0926.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: center;">Civilization! The
natural state of humanity<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p> </o:p>If this is “global warming,” let’s have some more of it!</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2997321998932262015.post-26865038048806862202023-05-27T17:53:00.001+01:002023-05-27T18:09:23.628+01:00ULEZ expansion, judicial shenanigans<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhCgjBHT9a2PKNtL5xZfeuv4wsD5507W2vF2MGM5dimmBWD1Fq2tkJCNC4bsObCsQd2wzqiCuz-oVQPtGlnDn2181rRxG59oaqQS_BFN70a_IcAY6Pba4i4us_a0D_6Ps5QZrJNUqx9uH-4jHykeAA67jdp4AbW25dZdMtXufGdaHFU-idgtRmgFq_Wg/s3000/browncarguy.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3000" data-original-width="3000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhCgjBHT9a2PKNtL5xZfeuv4wsD5507W2vF2MGM5dimmBWD1Fq2tkJCNC4bsObCsQd2wzqiCuz-oVQPtGlnDn2181rRxG59oaqQS_BFN70a_IcAY6Pba4i4us_a0D_6Ps5QZrJNUqx9uH-4jHykeAA67jdp4AbW25dZdMtXufGdaHFU-idgtRmgFq_Wg/s320/browncarguy.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">I made a
comment today on a thread about the judicial review of the ULEZ expansion: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CghvWMnOeHs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CghvWMnOeHs</a>.
Yesterday, the judge accepted two further matters into the judicial review due
on July 4<sup>th</sup>. The vlogger, Brown Car Guy, reported on this very
positively. Myself, I’m not so sure. So, here’s what I wrote:</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Brown Car
Guy, thank you for the great work you have been doing on behalf of everyone to
whom personal mobility is important.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">I apologize
if my comment may seem to some people here long-winded and maybe even a little
off-topic, but there are some points I feel I need to make on this subject.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">In summary,
I don't see this as a win. Just a re-organization of our enemies' forces behind
their lines.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">There were 5
points in the councils' submissions. (1) Breach of statutory requirements. (2)
Failure to consider compliance rates. (3) Failure to consult on the scrappage
scheme. (4) Failure to do cost-benefit analysis. (5) Failure to do a proper
consultation.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">(1) and part
of (3) were accepted earlier.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">The new
concerns accepted seem to be: (A) Failure to do a proper consultation on
compliance rates. (B) Failure to do a proper consultation on the scrappage
scheme.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">I haven't
looked at the documentation on these, so I'm relying on Brown Car Guy's
summaries. I for one don't see the difference between (3) and (B). As to (A),
it seems irrelevant. People should have been asked whether they wanted ULEZ
expansion or not, not whether or not they would comply with it if it happened.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">The two
kickers in the councils' submissions are (4) and (5). The new concerns accepted
do not address (4) at all. They appear to address (5), but only as far as it
applies to (2) (which in my view is irrelevant anyway) and (3) (which is a
minor issue. If there were no ULEZ, there wouldn't be any need for scrappage!)
I think these "concessions" are no more than window-dressing, to try
to take our attention away from the real issues. (4) Is the ULEZ expansion a nett
benefit to the people affected by it, or not? (5) Was there dishonesty of any
kind towards us in the conduct of the "consultation?"</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">As to (4),
the following link to a government website is instructive:
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/government-investment-programmes-the-green-book/.
"The 2020 review of the green book concluded that it failed to support the
Government’s objectives in areas such as ‘levelling up’ the regions and
reaching net zero. The review said this was because the process relied too
heavily on cost-benefit analysis, also known as the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).
The review found that the BCR placed too much weight on benefits that could easily
be assigned a monetary value, with insufficient weight given to whether the
proposed project addressed strategic policy priorities." So,
"strategic" policies, such as "net zero," are no longer
subject to even a pretence of analyzing whether or not they are a benefit to
the people? And this is supposed to be a democracy? Government for the benefit
of, and with the consent of, the people?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">As to (5),
again, I haven't studied the detail, but if Sadiq Khan has not been dishonest
towards the people he is supposed to serve, I would be very surprised.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></p><p></p>Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126036370198532319noreply@blogger.com0