If you have ever visited the North East of England and interacted with any inhabitants of that area, the chances are, never mind your gender or age, that you will have been called ‘pet’.
If you have ever visited London or the south east, and interacted with any inhabitants then the chances are, never mind your gender or age, that you have been called ‘love or darlin’.
If you have ever visited Edinburgh or Glasgow it’s ‘hen’ or ‘hennie’. Liverpool ‘chook’. There are too many to list..
These terms of endearment are a feature of the English language in all its rich tapestry of regional diversity and can be found from the plains of the USA to the slums of Glasgow. They are especially prevalent in the British Isles where regional accents and dialects are extremely distinct. I’m typing this 20 miles south of the border in Northumberland, here it is ‘pet’ 21 miles north, ‘hen’.
This phenomenon has been studied. In fact, dozens of academic studies exist on this unique cultural diversity. These studies also tell us how these words are used. Firstly, they are not gender-specific and tend not to be age-specific. Secondly, they are most prevalent in service interactions between strangers; in fact, they are seen as a polite and welcoming way of interacting in such circumstances. They are also, as mentioned, a feature of regional dialects and contribute to the keen sense of identity in communities. They are most commonly used by what is referred to as ‘non-academics’ – i.e., those who did not attend a university. They are universal in the working class of an urban area, but in rural areas, their use crosses classes. They are as unique to a region as a stottie cake is to a Geordie or a deep-fried haggis is to an Edinburger, forming part of our identity, diversity as a nation, society and heritage.
So why is my alma mata, the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne instructing its staff to avoid using ‘Pet’?
The 13 member-strong Diversity and Inclusion team (yes, 13 of them) at the University has issued a 7-page guide with 44 words and phrases listed that should be avoided as problematic. “Avoid patronising or gendered terms, such as girls, pet or ladies,” says the advice. Now, let’s put aside why an academic institution is so keen to police the speech of its staff and students by dictating what is ‘unacceptable’. We have already established, as they would have if they had actually researched the use of ‘pet’, that it is never used in a patronising manner and is not gender-specific. Had they checked the extensive amount of research, freely available with a five-minute Google search, they would not have jumped to this erroneous conclusion and would not now be in the headlines.
There are those who have been quick to agree. In the Telegraph, Eleanor Mills thunders that the University is “right to ban ‘pet’ – it’s so patronising”. She says she is “all for endearments” but claims that it is inappropriate when used to address young women. Oddly enough, she seems to like being called “my loverrrr” by red-faced West Country yokel types, but apparently Geordies don’t qualify for this tolerance.
Now, I don’t know where Ms. Mills is from, and I don’t know if she has ever spent any time in Newcastle or rural Northumberland. She sounds very ‘educated class’; like me, she speaks with an ‘RP’ accent, and RP is one of the very few dialects in British English that doesn’t use endearments in this way. I can’t think that she has spent any time up here, because if she had, she would know that ‘pet’ is never used exclusively to address young women; it is never used to patronise or uniquely in a sexist manner. As already described, ‘pet’, along with its equivalents, is in fact part of the rich micro-diachronic variation in British English. We can evidence that from the multiple studies carried out, and indeed, anyone who actually gets off their backside and travels to the regions to speak to the ‘plebs sordida’ can confirm this.
There’s a nasty whiff of classism here, that the working classes need to be morally corrected: what they eat, their politics, their relationships, their pastimes, their dress sense and their language must all be policed by those-who-know-what-is-in-their-best-interests. It doesn’t surprise me that a university EDI team has come out with this, and it doesn’t surprise me that Eleanor Mills has decided to chime in. The great unwashed must be tamed.
There is something else going on here, though. Such glossaries of ‘verboten’ words are becoming increasingly common, chosen and promulgated by these ‘experts’ in EDI and HR departments across our green and pleasant land. The idea that language must be policed comes from the assumption that all human interactions are, at their base, a conflict about power – gaining power over your interlocutor. If you speak to any modern academic versed in Critical Theory, this is front and centre of their worldview. The idea that an employee and an employer could have a relationship and a friendship based on mutual benefit is dismissed. The only dynamic in such a relationship is exploitation: the exploitation of the worker by the employer. It takes a distinctly negative view of humanity, assuming that humans are incapable of good intent towards one another and would only ever display good intent or generosity for personal gain – to manipulate. You won’t be surprised to hear that the most recent influential figure to promulgate this cynical and warped view of humanity was Vladimir Lenin, who based it on some of Nietzsche’s ideas. To Lenin, all relationships were about power, and the prerogative was to interact with others with your metaphorical foot on their necks.
Given how Marxist-Leninism has become the basis of so much of our academic effort over the last 50 years, it is hardly surprising that this dystopian view of humanity has eventually escaped from the Social Studies faculties and is now pervasive in society as a whole, where it is coming up sharply against 2,000 years of Christian thinking. This thinking holds that people are not inherently driven by power and exploitation, and that concepts such as generosity and charity are virtuous and should never be pursued for personal gain.
When HR departments take it upon themselves to inflict this view of the world on their employees, it usually backfires. In fact, we have the figures: EDI training has backfired spectacularly, with 63% of those trained experiencing major issues with it. Who would have thought that telling your employees they were incorrigible, unreconstructed Sidney Smutts from Viz – racists, bigots and homophobes to boot – who all need re-educating, wouldn’t go down well with those employees?
‘Microaggressions’, the idea that language needs to be micromanaged, is a dead end for society, and it is extraordinary that the Chartered Institute for Personnel Development (CIPD, the self-appointed boyars of the Human Resources industry in the U.K.) has adopted the theory so enthusiastically. The notion that normal, healthy human interactions and language must be policed by employers is a major problem. Firstly, it infantilises the employee; it removes their personal responsibility for their own behaviour and hands it over to the HR team. Issuing lists of ‘forbidden’ words or ‘microaggressions’ that might conceivably upset someone can never be comprehensive. “But that word wasn’t on the list, so it must be OK!” Furthermore, language relies on context; ‘lists’ remove context, and we have seen ‘microaggression’ policies devolve into a charter for empowering bullies in the workplace. In June 2024, the London City-based law firm Hogan Lovells announced that it was introducing a reporting service where employees could anonymously report colleagues for ‘microaggressions’, presumably so the HR team could then intervene and ‘take corrective action’. This was reported in the CIPD’s magazine, People Management, where they collected quotes from a variety of HR professionals, all of whom enthusiastically endorsed the idea. Not one critic was asked for their opinion (incidentally, those quotes supporting the measure, as you might expect, all seem to benefit directly from such a measure being introduced, e.g. ‘Inclusivity Consultants’).
There’s a historical point here which may come as a surprise to these HR people, so convinced that they are right to be doing this for the employee’s own good. Here’s the thing: the Popes and Kings who initiated the Inquisition didn’t set out to burn and terrorise their own populations. The mediaeval mindset was that the afterlife was very real and eternal, and that if you sinned or committed heresy in this life, your torment would be eternal. So a bit of physical pain on this side of death to persuade a heretic to reform his or her ways was entirely morally justified, because they were utterly convinced that if they did not, their souls would be in torment for eternity. It was for the heretic’s own good.
Another: East Germany was one of the most notorious surveillance states in history (although there are a few modern states which may have taken that crown). The Secret Police, the STASI, developed an informant network that encompassed one in every five of the entire population. The suppression of dissent and unapproved opinions and politics was extremely intrusive and frequently resulted in imprisonment. Unlike the collapse of many totalitarian regimes, we were able to interview and study those who thought this was a good idea. Universally, they were committed Marxist-Leninists who genuinely believed Communism was the only civilised way for people to live. Those who didn’t understand this needed to be re-educated for their own good. The STASI, the prisons and the informer networks all existed for the population’s own good. This is one of the reasons why periodically delinquent dissidents – those who had not responded to ‘re-education’ or the short, sharp shock of imprisonment; those who had resisted the zersetzung – literally the decomposition of your life, the 24/7 police and state harassment and intimidation – were deported to the West. They were incorrigible and wouldn’t respond to ‘re-education’. The ‘civilised’ approach was to throw them over the wall to their fellow capitalists. They gave up on them, but only after trying very hard to ‘fix’ them.
Does any of this sound familiar? In Britain, and indeed across the West, we have developed a managerial class that has taken upon itself the mantle of moral superiority and equates its politics with morality. It has convinced itself that its role is to make the world a better place by ‘addressing injustices’, whether they are current or historical. Any dissent is seen as coming from those who are obviously unenlightened and morally degenerate. These people need to be ‘re-educated’.
Now, for some reason that I have been unable to get an answer for, our institutions and companies seem to think that this needs to be done in the workplace as well as in schools, academies and universities. Apparently, getting a load of city lawyers to avoid ‘microaggressions’ is a worthwhile activity and ‘addresses injustices’. Really? Does it? Or does it actually demoralise those who are being policed? Does it create an atmosphere of treading on eggshells, where everyone is terrified to speak to others and trust no longer exists?
Put the lawyers aside for a moment. This week, Harry Miller from Fair Cop shared an anecdote in an interview. He mentioned that he had heard of two police officers who had been having a conversation in their squad car. The conversation was about DEI training. One of the officers, a Christian, said that he thought this was a waste of time and didn’t believe men could become women and vice versa, or words to that effect. When they returned to the station, his colleague reported him to HR. Why? Because HR apparently periodically checks the voice recordings of events in police cars to ensure that behaviour is appropriate. So, HR dragged the Christian officer in for questioning. He told them where to stick it and that he would sue if they disciplined him, because his opinion, both as a gender realist and a Christian, is protected under the Equality Act. Consequently, HR stepped down. However, the issue here, as Harry rightly pointed out, is that trust between employees is crucial everywhere; in the police, it can literally be a matter of life or death. Yet this policy undermines that trust by creating an atmosphere of suspicion, mistrust, and a culture of denunciation.
Need I point out that during The Great Purge in the USSR in the 1930s, people would denounce their own friends, family and colleagues because they thought that if they didn’t, they would be punished for not doing so, and they were right.
Is this really the society we want to live in?
Well, Newcastle University seems to think so, and they are keen to reassure people that these are ‘recommendations’ and ‘not compulsory’. Well, I am sorry if I call that out as utter nonsense, because we know damn fine that they don’t need to be compulsory to create an atmosphere of treading on eggshells around people, an idea that those who use such words are moral delinquents. Repeatedly, we see these ‘recommendations’ becoming mandates by default.
It is time for HR departments to take a long, hard look at themselves and wind back this nonsense before it causes irreparable damage to our workplaces and our society. It is not their job to micromanage human relationships.
C.J. Strachan is the pseudonym of a concerned Scot who worked for 30 years as a Human Resources executive in some of the U.K.’s leading organisations. This article was first published on his Substack which you can subscribe to here. He is a founder of Fair Job, an accreditation and support service for small businesses to help them navigate the minefields of DEI and HR.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
And, all the while the fratricidal ‘Mad Monk’ Miliband capers about like a latter day Savonarola, tiny tot labour MPs sitting in parliament and meant to be representing their shivering and aged constituents carry on like nothing so much as ‘a bunch of toddlers delighted with the contents of a steaming nappy!’ (Madeline Grant, DT)
Well, they won’t be smiling soon, twist and turn, squirm, as they will…….
They are intellectual minnows. And socialists. So highly dangerous individuals. Prepare for the collapse comrades
..and their policy is deliberate….
Perhaps the Houses of Parliament and House of Lords heating systems should be reconfigured to be powered by renewables only?
Clean power is dirty lies. Decarbonisation is energy fraud. You can’t play fast and loose with thermodynamics, the electricity grid and domestic heating…
https://richardlyon.substack.com/p/the-physics-of-net-zero
“…Physics, not imagination, or determination, limits what an energy transition can achieve. In this week’s essay, we look at energy’s most important physical property — gradient — to understand why running Britain on ‘renewable energy’ is physically impossible.”
Last Minister to leave the Cabinet meeting, blow out the candles and turn off the paraffin heater.
Thanks
Worth reading the post in the link and also this one which was linked from there
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/why-eroei-matters
Yes, some fundamental physics here that pulls the rug from under net zero. Still trying to get my head round it.
I thought the article on Energy Return on Energy Invested was clearer and more damning. The stuff about “energy gradient” made sense up to a point (you need concentrated energy sources to make the infrastructure necessary to exploit dissipated energy sources) but once you have that infrastructure you can use the energy to build more of it. But perhaps it all comes back to EROEI.
Paraffin heater?? That’s burning hydrocarbons. Presumably millipede will order everyone to shiver rather than create CO2.
Shivering Sir Kia will pull rank. Do as we say not as we do.
One of the amusing claims of last
summerdeadly heatwave season was that some German climate expert (a woman) claimed that eggs could be boiled at 40⁰ C and thus, we’re in grave danger because our brains contain protein. That’s the sort of rubbish MSM journalists tend to repeat mindlessly instead of asking the lady to demonstrate that experimentally: Boil an egg at 40⁰ C. Come back when it’s hard-boiled. Chicken hatching instead doesn’t count.Labour communist scum, and the tory blue socialist scum, are to blame. The b’stards should be on trial for killing people and destroying our economy and way of life. Ervything they do is a disaster. We need a revolution and direct democracy like the Swiss.
Our establishment and people are thick as mince. We allow these scumbags to do this to us, and we do nothing. Fools. I pray for the collapse because it will allow strong men (no women) to take charge and punish the criminals.
I think that some heads on poles (I’m looking at you Ed Miliband) would encourage a return to sanity. Sadly I’m not expecting anything like that soon, but carry on as we are and it will come when anger spills over.
Ah yes, but when the anger spills over (and tbh it doesn’t seem to matter what the reason is), anyone objecting about Milliband vision of net zero will be labelled ‘right wing’, and threatened with jail for carrying placards demanding coal power stations and oil and gas drilling. In fact, calling anything they don’t agree with ‘right wing’ means they feel they have won the argument and further discussion isn’t needed. It’s like name calling in a primary school playground.
I agree they will spin the propaganda to say it is our civic duty to save the planet by living without energy during cold weather and those that object will be punished. The Beeboids will lap it up as they did the jabs.
As i read this at 0815 wind is 8.18% of electricity on the grid. Not impressive.
Throughout the last week more than half of Britain’s electricity has been generated from gas, with solar contributing 2% for a few hours on some days and wind as low as 9%. Without imported gas there would be widespread death and economic collapse, whilst we are forced by policy to leave our own gas in the ground
The only bright glimmer on the energy front last week was that a company has applied for a fracking license
If we had power blackouts, would TPTB change their suicidal energy policy? Or do we have to sharpen the pitchforks and build the guillotines until they get the message?
We could be warm and paying a third of today’s prices were it not for policies introduced by Con/Lib and supercharged by Lab….with the Blob in all its forms in it up to their necks too
Net imports were 12% so we’d have been screwed without those too.
Wind might be the biggest single source of energy for electricity generation, but at best it’s about a third. But electricity is not the biggest source of energy – gas, petrol and diesel are still major providers. Electricity accounts for about 20% of energy use, so the 30% of electricity generation represents 6% of total energy use. As the UK’s contribution to CO2 emissions is about 1%, that means all the billions of pounds spent has reduced overall global emissions by 0.06%. In other words, made a next to sod all change to something that doesn’t exist. Great investment, eh?
I am amazed at the number of people who think that every country in the world is committed to nett zero, and never seem to become aware that we are playing this foolhardy game unilaterally. Indeed, if we were to achieve Nett Zero, the Chinese are increasing their CO2* every three months, by what we have reduced ours by.
*My other thing to be amazed at is how the same people thank that CO2 is some kind of poisoned gas.They just believe what they are told and dont even question anything. Only when we have sustained power black-outs will they start to ask questions
I think the perception of CO2 as a deadly gas is encouraged by the use of the word ‘carbon’ on its own in a great many instances. A lot of people associate carbon with black dirty deposits. I have spoken to people who think there is a growing sooty cloud of ‘carbon’ somewhere in the atmosphere. People’s stupidity knows no bounds.
The sad thing is, these are the same sort of people who get all their information from MSM. Currently they are generally not for turning.
That’s entirely the wrong association. Carbon is a fundamental building block of all life on this planet. All plants and animals consist mostly of carbon. The sole reason why so-called fossil fuel contains carbon is that it’s decayed biomass. Burning coal, oil or gas means burning what were once plants which drew carbon from the air or animals which acquired carbon by eating plants.
What always amazes me are the answers to the question – what proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere is CO2?
Average answer I get is around 5%, though I’ve had one person tell me 30%!
Quantity of Co2 in the earth’s atmosphere is 0.04%. Not a problem. John F.Clauser physics Nobel prize winner in 2022 regards climate change as nonsense.
And he’s been demonised and no-platformed for it.
I’ve taken to asking everyone I talk to about ‘climate change’ if they know what percentage of the earth’s atmosphere is made up up of carbon dioxide. Predictably, they have no clue other than to guess at double figure numbers – 15%….20%…. When I reveal that it is actually 0.04%, this is met with incredulity and feverish ‘fact checking’ online. Then I add the fact that if CO2 levels drop below a critical point (and apparently we are not a million miles away from it?), then all plant life will die. Cue my (usually) intelligent audience going into sulky silence as they process a few genuine facts which contradict their BBC-fed narrative…
Three more months of proper winter should do it.
God has the last word.
Don’t tell me there are no elderly hospitalised through cold at present, its just that the media I suspect have been told to not report it, and as the majority are left sympathisers its not in the interests of their owners to do so.
Cold? Good heaven’s no. They either got flu, covid or norovirus, nothing to do with the weather.
They’ve got “respiratory” illnesses. Respiratory illnesses are exacerbated by cold and damp, but it the Government/NHS will declare that they have a virus and the sheeple should line up for another jab.
The annual Winter “crisis” has nothing to do with increased admissions of the elderly for cold-related conditions exacerbated by hyperthermia. Good heavens no.
Yes, we need a winter like the one in ’63. Snow and freezing temperatures from Boxing Day to April.
I remember that winter. As a kid, I loved it!
No school because the bus couldn’t get through the 17 foot snow drifts. Out sledging until numb extremities drove us home to a roaring coal fire – no central heating.
I remember wearing two pair of jeans which got so wet the blue dye from them stained my thighs.
Hahaha! Happy days! Central heating! We had coats piled on top of our blankets, when we went to bed.
I hated it because I was so cold all the time and had chilblains. One thing that has improved immensely is the quality of warm winter wear manufactured from manmade fibres, the product of – guess what? – oil. And I am so much warmer nowadays.
We should spare a thought for the poor using pre-paid meters. If they run out of money they’re deemed to have ‘self disconnected’.
If they go a few days without feeding the meter, rustle up a spare fiver & feed the meter, accrued standing charges gobble up the fiver & they still can’t make a cup of tea. For some it’s desperate.
“…rustle up a spare fiver…” It used to be a shilling (1/-) – good old days.
Very important to share https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsM4aOmCb_U&list=PL89cj_OtPeenLkWMmdwcT8Dt0DGMb8RGR&index=1 . Not easy; it explains in detail how models indicate that carbon dioxide causes global warming while ignoring other factors which we know affect Earth’s climate. These include cyclical variations in energy transmitted to Earth from the Sun, and cyclical releases of energy from the oceans. The modelling developed in the 1960s assumed a stable climate absent changes in CO2 and limited changes in convection to exit heat from the system. This resulted in artificial increases in modelled ‘global’ temperatures ‘caused by’ CO2, which are not realistic, but can be supported by corrupted and manipulated ‘global temperature’ data. Serious money follows subsequent modelling only if it arrives at the same conclusion, and the result is Net Zero political commitments which will impoverish humanity for decades where they are followed.
Very important to share https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsM4aOmCb_U&list=PL89cj_OtPeenLkWMmdwcT8Dt0DGMb8RGR&index=1 . Not easy, it explains in detail how models indicate that carbon dioxide causes global warming while ignoring other factors which we know affect Earth’s climate. These include cyclical variations in energy transmitted to Earth from the Sun, and cyclical releases of energy from the oceans. The modelling developed in the 1960s assumed a stable climate absent changes in CO2 and limited changes in convection to exit heat from the system. This resulted in artificial increases in modelled ‘global’ temperatures ‘caused by’ CO2, which are not realistic, but can be supported by corrupted and manipulated ‘global temperature’ data. Serious money follows subsequent modelling only if it arrives at the same conclusion, and the result is Net Zero political commitments which will impoverish humanity for decades where they are followed.
There are so many really informative videos on youtube but point them out to a net zero/Covid vaccine loon and it’s ‘Oh, you’re a youtube believer’ – rolled eyes. Quite common in The Times comments.
“Monday, the Daily Mail reported that wind power had “overtaken gas”…”
Let’s see:-
Saturday 11am. Gas 52.56%; Nuclear 11.18%; wind 7.73%.
Oh.
If gas storage tanks are only 60% full… er, fill ‘em up. Too radical?
The shortage of gas storage is because Centrica needs £2 billion to expand storage and wants you dear taxpayer to cough up. It’s a debate that’s been going on for a few years. So it is not actually about Net Zero nonsense, just subsidy harvesting.
And for those who keep yapping on about nuclear being the solution – cos it’s soooooooooo cheap, Hinkley Point C which got its licence in 2012 “might” finally be completed after numerous delays by 2029 to 2031 at double the initial estimate.
Originally the consumer price was going to be £24 per MWh, now it has a government guaranteed consumer price of £128 per MWh (inflation linked) for the 35 year lifetime, which puts it at around the same CfD price for wind.
Nuclear fans are as bad as the windy sunbeam fans, only considering direct consumables costs, overlooking capital outlay, repairs, maintenance, labour and other operational costs and the limited lifetime over which these can be amortised – and of course that other pesky thing… profit.
In other words, a business has to make money. As someone said you cannot run a Green business on red numbers.
“you cannot run a Green business on red numbers.” Genius! Will be trotting this out as appropriate, though I suspect a great many people won’t get it, or will not want to get it.
I understand that the French are in trouble viz sourcing supplies for their nuclear power plants from Africa. The Africans are throwing them out and the price of raw materials will no longer be cheap to the French. Does anyone have more details?
Also the French nuclear fleet was paid for by the taxpayer when EDF was State owned, so when it was privatised it could enjoy operational profit without the capital deadweight on its balance sheet. (The same as happened with privatised BA and Concorde which allowed it to be operated at a profit.)
Its fleet of 59 need replacing but EDF (ironically providing some of the dosh for Hinkley Point C together with a Chinese outfit) can’t raise the money to replace them, so it has been renationalised so the French taxpayer will foot the bill. That means they will pay twice for electricity, once on their bills, again through their taxes – as is the case with anything State subsidised and as we are doing for our electricity.
Hope they don’t use an electric bus – it might run out of charge.
For how long can the Government sustain this sloganeering in the face of a stinging reality of cold weather, rising prices, business closures and a collapse in trust between the Government and its agencies and, indeed, its supporters?
They will carry on for a very long time yet. Even when power cuts and other disasters befall us, they will carry on. They have their excuses for failure already worked out, and ready to be unleashed.
For this government to change its tune, there will have to be a catastrophic failure (of the energy system), and very large numbers of deaths. Even then, they may battle on.
The only way to end this madness, is via coup, or in electing a party that is committed to reversing this self-immolation.
Milibent’s mission is to keep on pontificating in the hope that this will distract people for long enough to enable the forces behind him to cause irreparable harm or at least harm which will takes lifetimes to undo.
My latest post on the Net Zero climate change hoax which is propelling the country into blackouts and ever-deepening economic decline: https://metatron.substack.com/p/climate-change-and-the-corruption.
If we just put to one side the whole carbon dioxide debate for a minute, can we ask ourselves who the idiots are who say that they will vote for morons like Millibrain in the opinion polls. He represents a Northern constituency, where men and women who grafted in tough working environments lived and believed that the Labour party would see them looked after while they proudly carried on in their incredibly hard jobs. What does he offer these people? Look over a field of solar panels and marvel at the hundreds of workers busily attending to the equipment or admire the hundreds of people ensuring that the windmills across the countryside are all turning at the right speed. Nope, neither of those things happen but the industries that use to provide us with energy, coal (destroyed more by Wilson than Thatcher), oil, gas etc., power stations full of workers ensuring that the fuel source reached the boilers that made the turbines turn, ships servicing the oil platforms, all provided thousands of jobs that will never again exist because Millibrain is importing power or the equipment to generate power. Why do working men and women vote for him?
How on earth do wind and solar give a country energy security, when weather is now controlled by governments, at home and abroad?
I came back from a local drinks party, checked the DS updates, and having re-read this article I added not a couple but 10 logs to my wood burner, to give us a really warm night. Not only will we be warm, but we’ll be topping up any CO2 that got saved during the day, which is much better for the plant kingdom. And tomorrow, a bonfire! Happy days
My burner is going well this evening and has been in use for much of the day.
Would it not be great for a reporter to respond ‘but you are lying to everyone as the evidence shows.’
Some of the back bench MPs may well start to put pressure on Two Tier to do something out of their own self interest as they see their chances of remaining an MP receding by the week. At a local level, council leaders will be getting alarmed as the May elections approach and Reform keeps marching forward despite Nigel.
Given that many years ago China had already produced in a few short years more CO2 than the UK since the Industrial Revolution, whose Carbon Dioxide will mad Milibands Capture and Storage scheme, no doubt using expensively generated electricity, be capturing.
But China produces developing CO₂! That’s something entirely different! The UN says so!
[sarcasm]
Perhaps time to remember that, mad as Mad Ed is on this issue, the Conservatives are just as bad.
The original Climate Change Act was passed in 2008 with only five members of the House of Commons voting against – Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie, and Ann Widdecombe (the latter now with Reform UK).
And that original Climate Change Act only envisaged an 80% cut in emissions by 2050.
Did the Conservatives repeal the Act during their 14 years in power? Nope, THEY TOUGHENED IT UP, increasing the target from 80% to 100% (“net zero”) under Theresa May.
The Conservatives and Labour are both steeped in net zero madness. When the first power cut comes, they will BOTH share responsibility. And since that power cut will likely kill some elderly people, they will both have blood on their hands.
Remember that next time you hear Claire Coutinho whining about how terrible Mad Ed’s plans are.
Whilst comments like this:
‘Montford pointed out that this amounts to about “£20 million pounds per day under this one subsidy scheme alone”. As more and more renewable energy plants come online, these sums will rise’
remain the case. The net zero energy generation madness will remain unsustainable by any metric.
Clearly Mr Miliband and his cronies don’t have UK energy security in mind.
I frequently look back at this early 2023 article by David Craig.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/03/07/lets-all-play-the-growth-vs-green-game/
It seems to become ever more relevant as time goes by.
And to think that all this manufactured concensus is based on the false assumption CO2 is a deadly poisonous green house gas and must be lowered in the atmosphere in order to save us. When in actual fact the opposite is true. Insanity is the best way to describe this.