Guy de la Bédoyère wonders at the BBC's tremendously popular The Black and White Minstrel Show, that was still being staged as late as 1989, but about which the corporation is now unsurprisingly ashamed.
Hot summers, long droughts, warm winters, violent storms, even a hurricane – the 1600s were no stranger to extreme weather. The solution proposed at the time was self-denial. Sound familiar?
Following the conviction of journalist Peter Wilby on child pornography offences, Guy de la Bédoyère recalls the time as a 14 year-old he was sexually assaulted by BBC broadcaster Derek Cooper on a sleeper train.
Historian Guy de la Bédoyère has written a brilliant essay for the Daily Sceptic about the dizzying pace of change in the 21st Century and why it leaves many older people feeling frustrated and dispirited.
Guy de la Bédoyère in the Daily Sceptic says the Government is having a laugh if it expects him to pay £40,000 on making his house more energy efficient, including sticking a wind turbine on his roof.
The Government's response to the pandemic was to cast aside all restraint on untrammelled power and plunge the country into authoritarianism. We pulled back from the brink, says Guy de la Bédoyère, but only just.
Guy de la Bédoyère has lost count of the number of times he’s been asked where’s he’s originally from, in spite of being as British as they come. But he would never dream of taking offence.
Historian Guy de la Bédoyère thinks it’s almost inevitable that the increasingly unhinged eco protestors will split into violent and non-violent factions, with the former spawning a new generation of terrorists.
Locking down for months on end and printing money to fund it can only lead to inflation, as the extra money chases fewer goods. This was entirely predictable and lockdown-loving politicians have only themselves to blame.
Historian and Daily Sceptic regular Guy de la Bédoyère has looked into the cost of installing a heat pump: £40,000 over the next 10 years. Does the Government think we're mad?
by Guy de la Bédoyère One of the great virtues of this site has been the exchange of views in lively debate. It allows Lockdown Sceptics to be an island of measured sanity (at least sometimes!) in a sea of madness. In that spirit Toby invited me to write a piece about why I had a Covid vaccination. My decision was an individual one based on a variety of previous experiences and so it should be for everyone else, but the fact remains that all sorts of considerations arise in these most unusual of circumstances. The only message I have is that each of us should make our own judgements about what we do. Nobody should be forcing anyone to have the vaccine, and nobody should be hurling abuse at someone for deciding to have it. That kind of intolerance, on both sides, has become quite common of late and it’s a great pity. I also don’t think it’s worth adopting an entrenched dogmatic position. That creates hostages to fortune. Circumstances, and diseases, change. Deal with the situation at hand. Until last winter I’d never had a flu vaccine – I’ve never had flu so I didn’t see the point, and I’d managed nine years teaching in a secondary school until the age of 58 without having a single day...
by Guy de la Bédoyère The other day I wrote a piece for Lockdown Sceptics in which I referred to my intention to have the vaccine, though in fact the piece was about the terrible prospect of governments chasing after zero Covid. That piece has now been responded to on this site by an anonymous academic who explained his/her belief that vaccine passports make a mockery of free consent, and that I was in error when comparing the choice to have a vaccine with whether or not to choose to have a driving licence. The author also seemed to have concluded that I am in favour of vaccine passports. Indeed, it had never occurred to me that it might be read that way. Not only was I not talking about vaccine passports, but I also do not have a view on them, either pro or against so I was completely bewildered by the piece. I am reserving that judgement for when and if they are introduced. The author’s argument was that having a driving licence had nothing to do with being obliged to have a medical procedure. Really? That, I think, completely missed my point. I was talking about how we currently accept driving licences to protect us all from unqualified drivers or passports (not ‘vaccine passports’) to help protect...
