MPs’ Pension Scheme Might Have to be Bailed Out by Taxpayer Thanks to Years of Investments in Dodgy Green Stocks
Britain’s bombed out pension scheme for Members of Parliament might have to be bailed out by taxpayers following disastrous speculations in ‘ethical’ green investments. But the MPs have only their virtue-signalling selves to blame. For years they have nodded through statutory Net Zero measures that promote increasingly whacky technologies that nobody would dream of investing in unless huge state subsidies were on offer. The technical term for most green punts is dog shares. If MPs own gold-plated pensions are now at risk, the appropriate response to any request for taxpayer help should be, “Damn your impudence, get lost.”
The Telegraph reports the observation of Reform deputy leader Richard Tice that so-called ethical investments have crashed the pension scheme’s performance. It is noted that the £800 million fund is 25% short of its target for the year to March 2024 with a dangerous 40% used for Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investment. These ESG speculations that appeal to the virtuous could lead to taxpayers propping up the fund with tens of millions of pounds, notes Tice. On GB News, the Reform MP talked about investments in energy renewables and battery storage, all technologies helped on the legislative front by British lawmakers. He suggested that the funds should have been invested in traditional equities that perform in line with the wider market.
Green dog shares litter the financial landscape, and have done so for a number of years. Many of them have a history of under-performing the market for decades. Consider below the long-term performance of the Renewable Energy Industrial Index (RENIXX) which tracks the stock capitalisation of the 30 largest renewable energy industrial companies in the world.
Since the official start date around 2006 there has been zero capital growth. The situation is even worse for those who piled in at the recent height of the short Net Zero mania. As the RENIXX graph below shows, investments have more than halved in less than three years.
Last September, the Daily Sceptic published an article titled ‘If you want an investment portfolio full of dog shares try filling it with renewable and green punts’. We noted the fate of the retail exchange traded iShares Global Clean Energy fund which since its inception in 2008 has more or less halved an initial investment of £10,000. UK investment trust Greencoat Renewables PLC was said to provide “attractive risk adjusted returns with a compelling growth opportunity”. As we noted at the time, it was an imaginative way of explaining a loss in share value of 18.6% over the last five years. Perhaps it doesn’t come as a surprise to discover that both investment opportunities have each lost a further, one might say compelling, 10% of value this year to date.
When we published the article, many green energy stocks were suffering as the era of cheap, low interest money was coming to an end. Of course, the British governing classes were directly responsible for the fleeting boom in these junk stocks since for years they printed money and kept interest rates artificially low, as well as directing vast state subsidies into useless technologies such as wind and solar farms, heat pumps and battery storage. To this day, the MPs are promoting all manner of no expense-spared duds such as explosive hydrogen and potentially dangerous, pointless carbon capture. The further tragedy for Britain is that a split vote on the right allowed a deindustrialising, anti-working class Labour party to gain power last year devoted to the zealous promotion of the Net Zero fantasy. This is occurring in a world now waking up to the futility of taking hydrocarbons out of a modern industrial society solely because sandwich board activists have declared a fake climate crisis.
What brazen cheek it will be if the 200 parliamentary boobies, including the entire Lib Dem faction, who expressed support for the recent private member’s Climate and Nature Bill, ask for a taxpayer top-up to their pensions. This bill, which thankfully failed to make progress, would have brought about mass starvation, widespread disease and fatalities and the almost certain collapse of civil liberties. Within a few years, the bill would have reduced the domestic and imported use of hydrocarbons to just 10% of the current level. On the day of the debate, the height of the virtue on verbal display was twinned with the dismal low understanding of economics and science. Tory old buffer Sir Roger Gale summed up the all-round ignorance and pompous wind baggery by admitting the bill had a few “flaws” but would support it anyway for the sake of his grandchildren.
The few flaws in this bill promoted heavily by the Green Blob-funded Zero Hour would have included barely enough power to run basic services such as hospitals, led to people freezing in their homes, no food in the shops, no generally available medicines, no power to run sewage plants or hydrocarbons-based chemicals to clean the water, not to mention an inevitable breakdown in law and order. And, need it be added, no pensions, gold-plated or otherwise.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Matt Hancock Fails to Stop Andrew Bridgen’s Covid Vaccine Libel Action
By Will Jones
Matt Hancock has lost a High Court attempt to end a libel claim by former MP Andrew Bridgen against him over a tweet about the Covid vaccine. The Telegraph has more.
Mr Hancock, a former health secretary, is being sued by Andrew Bridgen over a post on X in January 2023.
Mr Bridgen, the former North West Leicestershire MP, shared a link to an article concerning data about deaths and other adverse reactions linked to Covid vaccines, stating: “As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”
Hours later, Mr Hancock shared a video of him asking a question in the Commons, captioned: “The disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society.”
He unsuccessfully asked a judge to throw out the case last year, and at a hearing in March asked the court in London to rule in his favour before a trial.
Mr Bridgen opposed the application, with his barristers calling it a “desperate last throw of the dice”.
In a judgment on Monday, Mrs Justice Collins Rice dismissed Mr Hancock’s bid, adding that whether Mr Bridgen succeeded in his case was “likely to depend on a full examination of the evidence both ways” and that there should not be a “mini-trial in advance of the evidential situation even being known”.
She continued: “My task on this application is not to consider who has the better case at this stage, much less who is more likely to win. My task is to consider whether Mr Bridgen’s case is unreal. Mr Bridgen’s case as pleaded and evidenced so far does not have an obvious quality of unreality.
“I am not in a position to conclude at this stage that Mr Bridgen’s prospects of success on either matter are such as to be determinable now to be unreal, and in any event there are, in my view, compelling reasons for further investigation at trial and a fully considered judgment thereafter.”
Mrs Justice Collins Rice said the case was “therefore set to proceed to the full evidential stages and on to trial”.
The judge also said Mr Bridgen’s “pleading of the counter-defence is, however, defective”, adding that he had a “limited opportunity” to amend it.
Mr Bridgen was suspended by the Conservatives after his post and expelled from the party in April 2023. He then sat as a Reclaim Party MP and then became an independent until he was defeated at last year’s General Election.
He previously said he wished to “clear his name” through the libel action over Mr Hancock’s “malicious” post.
Worth reading in full.
Rayner “Must Not Cave in to Farage Over Banter Crackdown”, Says Union Chief
By Will Jones
Angela Rayner must not cave in to critics such as Nigel Farage over her pub banter crackdown, a union chief has said, saying they are just protecting “their right to be offensive”. The Telegraph has more.
Paul Nowak, the head of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), has urged the Deputy Prime Minister to stand firm in her bid to protect workers from third-party harassment, which forms a key part of her Employment Rights Bill.
That is despite critics arguing that it will encourage people to “sue for hurt feelings”.
Mr Nowak argued that critics such as Mr Farage, who have attacked Ms Rayner’s workers’ rights reforms, are just protecting “their right to be offensive”.
While calling on pub landlords to back the Bill, the TUC boss argued that the third-party harassment clause will not mean monitoring conversations.
He said: “I love going to the pub as much as anyone but I don’t think that the thought police are going to descend on Britain’s pubs.”
His comments come after the Government was warned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that proposals forcing employers to protect staff from “third parties” could apply to “overheard conversations” among pubgoers.
The protections are set to be introduced under Ms Rayner’s Employment Rights Bill, which is a keystone of Labour’s so-called New Deal for Working People.
Concerns over the Bill were also raised in the House of Lords during a second reading last month.
Lord Young told peers that he was worried it would “accelerate the erasure of the good old British pub”, while Lord Strathcarron called it an “Alice in Wonderland” clause that would “satisfy the whims of the ever-changing, latest version of group think”.
Worth reading in full.
Can Trump Make America’s Showers Great Again?
By Tilak Doshi
A post on X on Wednesday played a hilarious excerpt from the comedy series of neurotic Jerry Seinfeld and his New York City friends. Seinfeld’s buddy Cosmo Kramer couldn’t stand the low-pressure showerheads mandated by the powers that be. X user @amuse – who boasts over 600,000 followers – remarked that “[i]t only took 29 years, but Jerry Seinfeld’s complaint about government-mandated, low-flow showerheads was finally taken seriously. Trump signed an EO to make showerheads great again.”
“No longer will shower heads be weak and worthless,” said a draft of Trump’s executive order, adding that it intended to “make America’s showers great again”. The White House fact sheet for the executive order was entitled: “President Donald J. Trump Makes America’s Showers Great Again.” When signing the order, the President joked, “In my case I like to take a nice shower, to take care of my beautiful hair.” All this might sound like a laughing matter, but that would be to misread the situation.
Showerheads with greater pressure, washing machines and dishwashers that actually do the job, light bulbs that don’t cost an arm and a leg, and plastic straws that don’t fall apart mid-drink make people’s lives easier. These are important to ordinary people and matter to their standard of living. More fundamentally, the argument that governments should not limit consumer choice unless such choices hurt other people is central to notions of democracy and consumer sovereignty.
President Trump is trying to put an end to punctilious Washington DC bureaucrats telling the plebs on Main Street how to live their lives. But will the climate change hobgoblin – “No, you cannot have strong, hot showers because it will contribute to global warming” – finally be exorcised from the day-to-day existence of Americans?
Will normal folk finally be liberated from the rule of banal bureaucrats who claim the noble cause of “fighting climate change”? Is there hope for people in Europe and the UK from living under endless mandates, supposedly to save mankind from Climate Armageddon, issued by government officials with their clipboards?
The Despotism of Energy Efficiency
Under President Obama, the Department of Energy (DOE) tightened efficiency standards for washing machines and dishwashers, requiring less water and electricity per cycle. Biden’s DOE continued this trend, proposing rules in 2023 to further limit water usage in these appliances, citing the “climate crisis”. According to the DOE then, its updated energy efficiency standards for water heaters “would save Americans more than $11 billion annually on utility bills”.
The Biden DOE made another announcement last year of “consensus-based energy-efficiency actions” regarding efficiency standards for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps, circulator pumps, dishwashers, and miscellaneous refrigeration appliances. These actions, according to the Department, “will save American households and businesses nearly $1.9 billion per year on utility bills, while significantly cutting energy waste and harmful carbon pollution”. It’s not clear just how these actions were “consensus based”. Perhaps the usual Left-wing environmental NGOs, funded by USAID, provided the “consensus”.
The IEA, the EPA, the World Bank, and the IMF are all champions of energy efficiency as a major tool to “fight climate change”. The IEA’s 2023 report on energy efficiency asserts that “[e]nergy efficiency is currently seeing a strong global focus among policy makers in recognition of its important role in enhancing energy security and affordability, and in accelerating clean energy transitions”. The Obama and Biden administrations as well as the European Commission and successive UK governments have issued mandate after mandate, regulation after regulation, subsidy after subsidy, tax after tax, in the name of energy efficiency.
In the US, these include an array of standards based on technology and performance-based criteria, minimum energy performance standards for consumer durables, bans of products like incandescent light bulbs, standards for fuel efficiency in automobiles, and countless bureaucratic requirements for businesses and households to prove that they are “energy efficient”. These standards are implemented based on cost-benefit analyses that purport to show the net benefits which result from restricting private choices by mandatory standards.
We Know What’s Best for You
One of the most consequential government mandates concerns corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards to improve the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. CAFE regulations in the United States were first enacted in 1975 after the 1973–74 Arab oil embargo. These standards were considerably tightened under the Obama and Biden administrations as climate change became a focal concern for government policy.
Obama’s EPA used cost-benefit analysis to compute the net benefits of CAFE standards. The analysis estimated total costs of $192 billion while total benefits were at $613 billion. Of these benefits, $533 billion accrue to consumers mainly via fuel savings. With such large benefits accruing to car buyers, the obvious question arises as to why mandated CAFE standards are required in the first place. Wouldn’t consumers choose to save themselves all this money without government mandates? Wouldn’t manufacturers provide higher fuel economy even in the absence of the CAFE mandates, given the huge private benefits estimated by the cost-benefit analysis?
Among the reasons offered by the government analysts in explaining the results of its study are inadequate consumer information on the value of improved fuel economy, the low value consumers typically place on long-term savings, the lack of salience of fuel savings in the purchasing decision, and ignorance on the part of manufacturers regarding the premiums consumers are willing to pay for improved fuel economy.
In other words, both consumers and manufactures are ignorant of the “real” factors at play as shown by their cost-benefit analysis. The presumption is that consumers and firms are unable to make sound choices on their own behalf, unlike the regulators who know better.
Presumptuous bureaucrats, however, fail to establish the case that strict mandates are warranted rather than education campaigns that would offer consumers the basis to make better purchasing decisions. Furthermore, mandated standards – unlike outright taxpayer funded subsidies – lack explicit cost information. This makes them easier to legislate. The hidden costs of mandatory standards imposed on manufacturers and suppliers, and the ultimate cost to consumers is not transparent.
Down with Plato’s Philosopher-Kings
If energy efficiency were such a great strategy, why would we need “experts” in the IEA, the EPA, or the World Bank to tell us about it? Businessman and consumers know how to save money and cut costs. In any rational world, they wouldn’t need to be forced to improve their own financial outcome. The projected outcomes on energy savings championed by bureaucrats are often fantasies built on hopelessly distorted cost-benefit models, much like the “tuned” climate change models which invariably predict impending catastrophe.
In Plato’s utopian society, the perfect city is ruled by guardians – the philosopher-kings – who “will be most knowledgeable; they will see to the good of the city before they see to themselves because, essentially, they are the foundation of the city”. In the Obama and Biden administrations, the guardian-bureaucrats ruled while the plebs in Main Street obeyed.
The Trumpian counter-revolution seeks to overthrow the rule of bureaucrats. From showerheads to cars, may consumer sovereignty prevail! Jerry Seinfeld’s plea for showerheads with strong water pressure in the name of humanity will not be in vain.
Dr Tilak K. Doshi is the Daily Sceptic‘s Energy Editor. He is an economist, a member of the CO2 Coalition and a former contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.
NHS Discriminates Against White Job Applicants in Shortlists
By Will Jones
NHS trusts discriminate against white job applicants by manipulating interview shortlists in favour of black and ethnic minority candidates. The Telegraph has the story.
NHS England documents encourage the use of the Rooney Rule – an American football policy that makes it mandatory for ethnic minorities to be shortlisted for interviews if they apply.
Other so-called inclusive recruitment practices range from making managers justify hiring white British nationals to using race as a “tie-breaker”.
An NHS hospital in Liverpool admitted it had previously used “positive discrimination” to shortlist applicants from minority backgrounds.
The disclosure is the latest in a growing row over ‘racist’ hiring policies being pursued by public sector services following a decision by West Yorkshire Police to temporarily block applications from white Britons.
It is likely to cast a spotlight on organisations that attempt to give minorities priority during the interview process, particularly by focusing on how candidates are shortlisted.
A Tory source described the NHS as seeking to “discriminate against applicants based on their race”.
Grant Shapps, the former Tory Cabinet minister, said the “tick-box” exercise was “entrenching racial quotas”.
He said: “This kind of tick-box policy is patronising, divisive, and fundamentally wrong. Jobs should be awarded on merit, not skin colour.
“We should be building a colour-blind society, not entrenching racial quotas under the banner of ‘diversity’.”
Practices to promote diverse shortlists stem from the 2010 Equality Act, which made it legal to take “positive action” to support the recruitment of ethnic minorities.
The act, drawn up by Baroness Harman, the then Labour minister, has been seized upon by HR professionals who want to diversify their workforces.
Positive discrimination – where a minority candidate is explicitly favoured over a white candidate who is better qualified – is illegal in the UK.
Supporters of the Rooney Rule and similar measures argue they do not amount to discrimination because the interview process is the same for everyone on the shortlist.
Neil O’Brien, a Tory MP and former health minister, said public services had been infected by “race-based hiring policies” that mean “people are chosen based on the colour of their skin”.
He said: “The people who put these policies in place lump together every non-white group as if they are all the same, and will favour someone from a privileged background better than someone who has overcome all kinds of obstacles, as long as they have the right skin colour.”
Worth reading in full.
The Sentencing Council’s Two-Tier Guidelines Failed to Treat People as Individuals
There has been considerable uproar recently over an issue that rarely attracts headlines: sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. Large sections of both the public and the political establishment — including, notably, the Justice Minister, Shabana Mahmood — have voiced concern that the new rules risk creating a ‘two-tier’ justice system. As the Lord Chancellor noted, “These guidelines create a justice system where outcomes could be influenced by race, culture or religion. This differential treatment is unacceptable – equality before the law is the backbone of public confidence in our justice system.”
The guidelines which were set to take effect on April 1st stated that a pre-sentence report “will normally be considered necessary if the offender belongs to one (or more) of cohorts” such as: ethnic minority or faith minority communities; female; pregnant or past-natal; transgender etc. The council’s rationale was to address and eliminate disparities, i.e., an alleged sentence gap, between different ethnicities – a strange idea once we realise that a sentence applies to an individual, not to a group. Following heated discussions, the Sentencing Council met with the Justice Secretary. It was agreed upon that the guidelines would not be brought in while there was a “draft bill due for imminent introduction”. A potential political, and perhaps constitutional, crisis over a core matter of state decision-making was thus averted, despite the issue being relatively minor. The Justice Minister stressed that she was “grateful” to the Sentencing Council for delaying the implementation of its new guidelines.
While public discussion has rightly focused on the issue of two-tier justice, I would like to draw attention to a separate but closely related issue. Even more concerning than the default requirement for a pre-sentence report — which typically brings mitigating circumstances to light — for some identifiable groups but not for large parts of the population, notably white men, is the underlying policy rationale: the notion that mere membership in a reference class (or “cohort”, in the Sentencing Council’s terminology) could trigger legal consequences. Let me explain why.
On Reference Classes and Individuals
From Aristotle who noted that “praise and blame attach only to voluntary actions” over Kant who defined autonomy as the capacity to decide for oneself, to contemporary philosophers who indefatigably emphasise the fundamental value of autonomy in modern societies, personal autonomy has occupied centre stage in Western philosophy and polity. Arguably, personal autonomy and human dignity can and should be regarded as axiomatic (moral) truths. For example R.A. Dahl (Democracy and Its Critics, 1989), among other democratic theorists, talks about the “presumption of autonomy”: “To accept the idea of personal autonomy among adults, then, is to establish a presumption that in making individual or collective choices each adult ought to be treated — for purposes of making decisions — as the proper judge of his or her own interests” – which articulates humans as rational agents with the capacity to make, and act upon, judgments for which they (and no one else) are to be held responsible. As Aristotle expressed this axiomatic truth a few millennia ago: “To distinguish the voluntary and the involuntary is presumably necessary for those who are studying the nature of virtue, and useful also for legislators with a view to the assigning both of honours and of punishments” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book III, Chapter I, emphasis added).
It is thus unsurprising that the idea of reducing a human being to a handful of group-mediated traits — an appealing notion for proponents of identity politics — is not only antithetical to core legal principles in Western legal orders; it is, in effect, an attempt to strip complex phenomena to the bone and reduce them to a set of collective traits. Yet, just as the complexity of physical phenomena exceeds that of any linear equation, the normative architecture of the individual — especially the legally protected dignity of the person — resists all reductionist approaches. Heisenberg’s wistful dictum that “the equation knows best” may hold in the realm of nuclear physics, but legal adjudication in Western legal systems is not that context. For example, stop-and-searching a citizen solely on the basis of his or her membership in a reference class — or even (not) convicting a defendant in a criminal court because of a specific trait — does not fail or succeed from the point of view of logicality. Insurance companies routinely rely on non-individualised statistical scores and do so with remarkable financial success. However, within the procedural architecture of Western legal orders, epistemic considerations must be filtered and validated through a framework of constitutional rights, legal and evidential principles, and foundational values. Those values and principles, in every modern Western legal system that I am aware of, are anthropocentric — i.e., grounded in the individual. They are thus not group-mediated.
On a more practical level, the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court has held that “the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of the Convention guarantees”. This notion must therefore be understood as “an essential corollary of the individual’s freedom of choice” (Sørensen & Rasmussen v Denmark). Given that personal autonomy and human dignity — two concepts that go hand in hand (see e.g. Avram and Others v. Moldova)— are central values in Western anthropocentric legal orders, it becomes ethically and legally untenable to regard a human being merely as the embodiment of a set of social traits. Even more troubling is the prospect of holding someone (less) responsible not for his or her own actions or omissions, but for those of a group (cohort) to which he or she belongs. Similarly, it is deeply problematic to order a pre-sentence report based on the offender’s membership in a reference group. There is, I submit, a specific-evidence-requirement that is closely tied to the fundamental concept of judicial discretion — an intrinsic feature of the legal order.
In modern Western legal orders, the system of adjudication is by no means an exercise in identity politics. Human dignity, personal autonomy, reasonableness etc. are normative features, not debatable political claims. The same features give thrust to what the courts around the globe call the ‘dissimilarities approach’ which focuses on what distinguishes the members of any reference class, not on an alleged shared identity that unites them. As the US American Judge Kozinski put it with regards to the perhaps most expansive class action in legal history where roughly one and a half million women alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Walmart stores:
The half million members of the majority’s approved class held a multitude of jobs, at different levels of… hierarchy, for variable lengths of time… with a kaleidoscope of supervisors (male and female), subject to a variety of regional policies that all differed. … Some thrived while others did poorly. They have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit. (Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case Nos. 04-16688 and 04-16720, 603 F. 3d, at 652, per Chief Judge Kozinski.)
As the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (The Gay Science, § 128) put it pithily: “Seeing things as similar and making things the same is the sign of weak eyes.” The Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein provided a similar diagnosis a while ago. He remarked that our “craving for generality” is a synonym of “the contemptuous attitude towards the particular case”. Similar to philosophers — i.e., Wittgenstein’s target of criticism — the Sentencing Council too adopted the methodology of science (with an identity politics twist) and felt “irresistibly tempted to ask and answer [questions] in the way science does”, i.e., with aspirations to generality. Just that craving, Wittgenstein remarked, lead us “into complete darkness” (L. Wittgenstein, The Blue Book).
Criminal Justice or Social Justice?
Whether we could reduce a legal decision to an individual’s membership in a reference class is ultimately a matter of policy. In other words, societies could choose to base such decisions on statistical data or collective traits — but only if they were prepared to embrace collectivist or otherwise non-individualist values. High-ranking officers of the Soviet regime concisely summed up this idea: “We are not fighting against single individuals,” writes Martin Latsis, who headed the Ukrainian secret communist police (Cheka).
We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. It is not necessary during the interrogation to look for evidence proving that the accused opposed the Soviets by word or action. The first question you should ask him is what class does he belong to, what is his origin, his education and his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. Such is the sense and essence of red terror. (In the newspaper Red Terror, November 1st 1918, emphasis added.)
What is more, it is no mere linguistic coincidence that the closely related term ‘fascism’ derives from the Italian ‘fascio’, meaning ‘to bundle’. By enacting what we have called here the specific (individualised) evidence rule, Western legal orders — particularly in the context of criminal law — choose not to bundle individuals together, but to treat them with dignity, on a case-by-case basis. Each decision, including whether to order a pre-sentence report, should thus be grounded in the particular facts of the case.
The requirement of ‘specific evidence’ and ‘individualised justice’ is not merely another procedural feature of modern legal orders. It is, in essence, the bulwark against bundled or automated forms of decision-making that may produce legal or otherwise significant consequences for individuals. Group-to-individual inferences undermine core tenets of liberal legal systems, including human dignity and personal autonomy. The anthropocentric approach in law — both generally and in sentencing specifically — aims to ensure that the exercise of discretion is not displaced by group-mediated methods or, notably, by the influence of identity politics. Legal decision-making simply cannot be reduced to collective traits, as envisaged by proponents of so-called social justice. As W.C. Salmon (1974) put it pithily, “God would be unable to construct an inductive-statistical explanation of any physical event… not as a limitation of His power but as a reflection of His omniscience” (28 Synthese, 1974, pp. 165-169). For an omniscient God would be able to detect the tiniest difference between seemingly similar cases and classify them separately.
Sentencing in England and Wales, by adhering to the political and constitutional principles outlined above, cannot: a) fall prey to any form of anthropological essentialism in which individuals are reduced to mere intersections of statistical traits (as postulated by modern identity politics), and b) wilfully ignore the inherent heterogeneity within any group. While it is obvious that no court judgment can or should capture every minute detail, a deliberate and entirely avoidable disregard for context or for the unique characteristics of the offender is deeply troubling.
Whereas singularities pose deep challenges for scientific theories — and are particularly inconvenient for proponents of identity politics — the sheer complexity of criminal cases defies meaningful generalisation. As Lord Hoffmann once observed: “The slightest movement of the kaleidoscope of facts creates a new pattern which must be examined afresh” (91 Law Quarterly Review, 1975, pp. 193-206).
In summary, any one-size-fits-all approach to decision-making — whether in policing, sentencing or probation — raises serious concerns about the legitimacy and lawfulness of the resulting decisions or verdicts. It is time to move past such reductive approaches and tackle the difficult task of decision-making in sentencing without resorting to oversimplifying or authoritarian methods that seek to assign mitigating or aggravating circumstances based on an offender’s shared characteristics with others.
The new Bill currently making its way through Parliament seeks to make provisions regarding sentencing guidelines in relation to pre-sentence reports.
It is crucial to remember that sentencing including an order for a pre-sentence-report must be based on individualised evidence. Criminal justice and social justice are distinct, and indeed antithetical, concepts. Mind the gap!
Dr Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou is an Associate Professor of Law and Deputy Director of the Centre for Evidence and Criminal Justice Studies at Northumbria Law School. A longer version of this article can be found here. You can follow his X account here.
Has the Demise of DEI Been Greatly Exaggerated?
DEI is ongoing in the NHS, as seen in NHS Fife’s defence against Nurse Sandie Peggy’s tribunal over men accessing women’s changing rooms. NHS Scotland seems to be offering similar questionable changing room advice, and in England, Guy’s and St Thomas’ is also in the spotlight.
This week, it’s the police again. Senior leadership in several forces appear determined to embed BLM-style Critical Race Theory into workplace culture — affecting everything from public interactions to internal HR. A whistleblower has revealed that West Yorkshire Police may be using race as a recruitment criterion, potentially crossing the line into unlawful discrimination against white applicants. The force and the Home Secretary deny this but talk in the HR world is that it’s pretty close to the line. Whilst the Equality Act 2010 does allow ‘positive action’ to encourage and support the application of those with protected characteristics such as race and sex, it is not a licence to discriminate directly or indirectly. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if white applicants who have been rejected initiate claims against the force.
Police forces have a track record of ignoring their obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and failing to understand the limits of ‘positive action’. Indeed, recent developments at Thames Valley Police suggest that some leaders are beginning to realise DEI policies have caused serious internal damage. Back in August, I reported on the Employment Tribunal it lost after three white male sergeants were passed over for promotion in favour of a female officer of Asian background. The ruling was damning: the decision-makers had no real understanding of their legal duties under the Equality Act 2010, ignored internal expert advice, and were found to be operating within an institutionally racist culture. At the time, I noted how astonishing it was that the leadership not only made such a decision but then pressed ahead to a tribunal they clearly had little chance of winning — even against their own internal advice.
Following the ruling, Police and Crime Commissioner Matthew Barber ordered an urgent review, led by a former Assistant Chief Constable. Her findings, published this week and covered in the Telegraph, were no less scathing.
The review, by former assistant chief constable Kerrin Wilson, said it was “unfortunate” that Thames Valley was rolling out its equity training just as the employment tribunal had found the force guilty of positive discrimination.
Ms Wilson noted some officers expressed “strong feelings of frustration”.
“As white males they felt disadvantaged and… they had the perception that unfairness was allowed for minority groups but not for majority populations,” she wrote.
Her review revealed the tribunal’s ruling had sparked a backlash within the force from white officers who felt “overlooked and undervalued”, as well as from ethnic minority officers who believed it had set back efforts to boost diversity.
It said ethnic minority staff in the force no longer wanted to participate in special schemes to improve their chances of promotion as “the damage to their reputation is greater than the opportunity they may have been afforded”.
“A number of minoritised [sic] staff have declared openly that they will not seek promotion or specialist moves in the foreseeable future as this has left them feeling that even if they did succeed in securing promotions their efforts would not be accepted by some as genuine,” it said.
“Some staff have stated that despite being in the force for many, many years they now feel that [it] has become a hostile environment and they would not advocate for [sic] the force as an employer of choice for those from a minoritised background.”
The review also said there had been a “very strong, at times bordering on aggressive” response from white officers, who wanted their bosses to be disciplined for the positive discrimination and felt “they have no support within the force”.
It warned that internal relations could turn hostile without action. “There is a tangible feeling of being overlooked which is reflected in the wider societal discourse that is emerging around the UK and so cannot be ignored,” it said.
“If this is not addressed, this may well lead to even greater divides within the force as cultural attitudes become more hostile.”
It then goes on to quote Rory Geoheagan, a former oolice officer and adviser to Number 10, who doesn’t pull his punches:
“Police officers and staff deserve far better from their leaders than to be crudely categorised by skin colour and subjected to reductive, divisive ideologies.
“The independent review exposes this troubling practice, but it fails to identify or confront the underlying issue: the unthinking acceptance of critical race theory – a deeply political framework that has no place in an impartial police service.
“Police chiefs and their elected commissioners risk creating a serious, long-lasting fracture in public trust and confidence if they continue to prioritise the views of a few vocal stakeholders over their fundamental public duty to uphold the law impartially.”
The article publishes Thames Valley Police’s response:
“Our staff and officers represent a diverse group with a range of views on many issues – but it’s our shared values that bring us together to protect our communities.
“We are committed to learning from this employment tribunal and independent review to improve how we work together.
“We strive to be fair and courageous in how we serve our colleagues and the community.”
With almost comic timing, just as it was responding to the Tribunal’s findings, Thames Valley Police decided to roll out ‘White Privilege’ training to staff — adding insult to injury. Even the report’s author, former Assistant Chief Constable Kerrin Wilson, called the timing “unfortunate”.
But none of this surprises me. Back in August, writing for the Daily Sceptic, I reported on a whistleblower leak: TVP’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion training for new recruits. It was essentially a TED Talk by a radical American Critical Race Theory (CRT) advocate. I said then that it was no shock the leadership had racially discriminated against white officers — because CRT not only promotes a racialised worldview, it defines ‘racism’ in a way that clashes with UK law. According to CRT, only those with ‘power and privilege’ can be racist, which in a white-majority society means only (and all) white people. But the UK’s Equality Act 2010 makes clear that ‘race’ includes colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins — and prohibits all forms of racial discrimination, full stop.
TVP’s own inclusivity policy is supposed to reflect that law. Basic HR practice dictates that any training must align with company policy, which in turn is grounded in legal obligations. It’s risk management 101. Instead, TVP pushed ideological DEI content that bore little resemblance to its own legal framework, apparently aiming to socially engineer the force’s culture.
This raised eyebrows in HR circles, especially as many private sector organisations have already begun reigning in DEI content to ensure it’s legally sound. So, given that the tribunal had already condemned TVP for breaching the law — and that their ideological training had been publicly exposed — it’s deeply disappointing to see them doubling down by promoting the divisive and, frankly, racist concept of ‘White Privilege’ to their already demoralised staff.
C.J. Strachan is the pseudonym of a concerned Scot who worked for 30 years as a Human Resources executive in some of the UK’s leading organisations. Subscribe to his Substack page.
News Round-Up
By Toby Young
- “American conservatives turn on Winston Churchill” – The Telegraph reports that Trump may be a fan of Churchill, but isolationism is fuelling revisionism about Britain’s wartime leader among hard-Right US influencers.
- “America’s most valuable company is about to be crippled by Trump” – In the Telegraph, Matthew Lynn claims that Trump’s poorly planned, poorly designed, poorly executed policies could do serious damage to Apple.
- “China and America agree: Apple is too big to fail” – The problem with building iPhones in America isn’t that they’d be priced at $3,500 each – it’s that they wouldn’t be built at all, reports the Free Press.
- “Nvidia to build first US factories after boss dines with Trump” – Nvidia owner Jensen Huang’s pledge to invest in America comes as Trump’s tariffs cause global uncertainty, according to the Telegraph.
- “Trump has been proven right about pretty much everything” – In an article in the Telegraph, Liz Truss claims that Net Zero, trade with China, Covid lockdowns, and mass migration have all have been disastrous.
- “The Deportation of Dissent” – The Bedrock Principle reports on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ move to screen the social media posts of “aliens applying for lawful permanent resident status” and deport them if they don’t like them.
- “Trump says he’s prepping for ‘war’ with China as he angers Xi Jinping” – The Mail reports on Trump’s latest – and most alarming – justification for his tariff hikes.
- “Trump’s Triple Win at the Supreme Court” – The Wall Street Journal reports that a majority on the Supreme Court handed Trump a partial victory on Monday by allowing his administration to deport Venezuelans believed to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
- “Hungary bans public events for the gay community” – Hungary has banned public events held to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community, a decision that Viktor Orban’s critics call another step toward authoritarianism, according to the Mail.
- “Mario Vargas Llosa was that rare thing, a freedom-loving literary genius of the right” – In the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan praises Mario Vargas Llosa’s attitude towards authoritarianism.
- “German tanks always flop. The Leopard 2 is no different” – The much-vaunted German Leopard 2 tank – 18 of which were sent to Ukraine in 2023 – is proving a flop on the battlefield, according to the Spectator.
- “Politicians who fail to protect rape gang victims could be prosecuted” – Rochdale whistleblower Maggie Oliver tells the Telegraph that action needs to be taken to secure justice for the victims of rape gangs
- “Prosecutors ‘let fake news spread’ by blocking Southport killer facts” – The Times reports that police were put in a “very difficult position” in the aftermath of the Southport murders due to “inconsistent advice” from the Crown Prosecution Service about what they could and couldn’t say about Axel Rudakubana.
- “Courts without juries ‘could bring swifter justice’” – Five former lord chancellors and two former lord chief justices have backed a call for some cases to be fast-tracked – and juries dispensed with – to slash a crippling backlog, writes the Times.
- “The Irish establishment cannot fathom Conor McGregor’s popularity” – The more politicians try to foist their progressive views on the public, the more disillusioned the public become, writes Ruth Dudley Edwards in the Telegraph.
- “Albanian lesbian pair can stay in UK as home country is ‘homophobic’” – A judge has ruled that two Albanian lesbians can stay in the UK on human rights grounds despite the Home Office pointing out it is not against the law to be gay in Albania, reports the Mail.
- “Museums need a new approach to restitution” – Instead of blindly following activist demands when it comes to restoring artefacts, it is time for a new approach from museums, says the Spectator.
- “Sunak’s former aide among 15 charged with election betting offences” – The Telegraph reports that Craig Williams, a former Tory MP, has been charged after an investigation into bets on the timing of last year’s general election.
- “‘They run the prisons’: How Islamist gangs are taking over Britain’s jails” – According to the Telegraph, groups of Muslim inmates use violence and intimidation to “overrun” high-security prisons, leaving authorities powerless to stop them.
- “Why there are no male teachers” – With Netflix’s drama Adolescence raising questions about masculinity, it’s clear that Britain needs more men at the front of the class, writes the Telegraph. But men don’t want to become teachers.
- “Pubs call last orders at 9pm after Reeves tax raid” – The Telegraph reports that the National Insurance increase has pushed pub landlords to cut back opening hours.
- “Unions threaten to spread bin strikes across country” – The Telegraph says that Unite is considering a series of walkouts by bin men in the event of further pay disputes like the one in Birmingham. Summer of discontent?
- “Free Speech in retreat” – Ofcom’s assumption of new, draconian powers under the Online Safety Act means the UK is turning its back on free speech, according to HART’s Substack.
- “You got a licence for that?” – Everyday activities are now regulated, banned or criminalised by the state, according to Josie Appleton in Spiked.
- “The UK’s free-speech crisis is about to get so much worse” – The Crime and Policing Bill could unleash terrifying new censorship powers, writes Andrew Tettenborn in Spiked.
- “Stop Brexit Man’s court victory is a win for free speech” – In the Spectator, Patrick West says that free speech is a principle that should always be regarded as precious, irrespective of current, transient circumstances.
- “The disgraceful denial of two-tier policing” – The criminal-justice system has become corrupted by multiculturalism but MPs are still in denial about this, says Fraser Myers in Spiked.
- “Murray, Rogan and the limits of ‘edgelordism’” – In Spiked, Brendan O’Neill explores why both the contrarian Right and conformist Left have fallen for the lies of Israelophobia.
- “Build more prisons: The public must be protected from career criminals” – The link between a lack of jail places and crime is now undeniable, according to the Lawrence Newport in the Telegraph.
- “Black actor to play Severus Snape in Harry Potter remake” – Paapa Essiedu’s casting as a character with “marble white” skin in the Harry Potter TV series has led to a backlash among some fans, the Telegraph says.
- “Blue Origin’s all-female space flight was a step backwards for feminism” – Blue Origin’s space rocket flight must surely go down as the most self-indulgent and pointless trip into space of all time, says Jawad Iqbal in the Spectator.
- “‘Bombshell’ report: Officials covered up sick athletes at Wuhan Military Games” – In his Substack, Bill Rice analyses evidence that officials refused to investigate possible early cases of Covid at a potential “super-spreader” event in October 2019.
- “Three studies show definitively that the influenza vaccines don’t work” – Why won’t the press admit the influenza vaccines don’t work? asks Steve Kirsch in his newsletter.
- “Ed Miliband’s Net Zero obsession left British Steel on brink of extinction” – Jawad Iqbal in the Times says the collapse of British Steel is because ministers were more concerned with burnishing their environmental credentials than acting in the national interest.
- “Chinese investors aren’t to blame for the death of British Steel. Net Zero is” – The nationalisation of British Steel will force the Government to finally face up to the real costs of green utopianism, according to the Telegraph.
- “In the absence of a Government with a spine, the unions are making all the running” – Andrew Griffith in the Telegraph says that until the mad dash to Net Zero is ditched, we are left with nothing but sticking plaster politics.
- “Incoming German government from hell enthusiastically promises to artificially inflate energy prices, regrets that the social welfare state must absorb ever more of our income” – On his Substack, Eugyprius writes about the replacement of old water meters with new digital ones in an effort by the authorities to more closely monitor water usage.
- “Royal Mail buyer’s company earning millions from wasted wind power” – The Telegraph reports that Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky’s energy company is among the beneficiaries of switch-offs to relieve the congested grid.
- “Why does Ireland want hairdressers to lecture you about climate change?” – In the Spectator, Ian O’Doherty bemoans the latest climate change project from the Irish Government – a relentless drive to spend other people’s money on initiatives they never asked for.
- “Plans for giant gas-filled caverns to avoid Net Zero energy shortages” – Morecambe Bay is set to host a new storage scheme for Britain’s vulnerable energy system, reports the Telegraph.
- “Racing could be next victim of Net Zero battery obsession” – Newmarket’s 3,000-horse population and human residents “should prepare for emergency evacuation” if a controversial development gets the go-ahead, writes the Telegraph.
- “Report into Southport riots finds social media fuelled unrest” – On Good Morning Britain, Tom Slater argues with a senior Met police officer who thinks Britain should set up a dedicated police force to monitor social media and prosecute thought criminals.
If you have any tips for inclusion in the round-up, email us here.
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.
They do damage, full stop. Here’s Guy Hatchard talking about a recent study demonstrating the possibility of integration of the toxic crud into DNA and the implications;
”Transfection involves the insertion of foreign nucleic acids into a cell. What does the stabilisation of this process mean for us? The stable (permanent) integration of genetic material into a host cell chromosome may result in activation of oncogenes (cancer genes) or knockout of tumour suppressor genes. In other words, it can cause cancers.
In an attempt to avoid this happening, genetic material, including that used in mRNA vaccines, has been ‘end-capped’. However, unexpectedly, the study found that “the end modification of linear DNA did not significantly decrease the rate of integration [into human cell lines].”
We have been repeatedly assured that mRNA vaccines could not integrate into the human genome. Our concerns were often described by so-called fact checkers (aka media hacks and disinformation project scaremongers) as conspiracy theories. The study found that not only can this happen, but that it could happen with a frequency of up to 20%, one case in every five.
The outcome of these DNA integration events can only be described as a slowly unfolding train wreck of global proportions. The integration of DNA in this way is heritable—it can be passed to future generations, placing billions of our children’s children and so on in the shadow of genetic illness created by scientists who ignored evidence of harm and pressed ahead to subject the whole world’s population to novel biotech experimentation.”
https://hatchardreport.com/our-worst-nightmare-beckons/
“They do damage, full stop. Here’s Guy Hatchard talking about a recent study demonstrating the possibility of integration of the toxic crud into DNA and the implications;”
Multiple papers on this now. Not a “possibility” but reality.
Not sure if you’ve seen the latest excellent ‘stack from Arkmedic. He writes about ‘Plasmidgate’ but with a twist. It’s certainly looking less and less likely that ‘Hanlon’s Razor’ applies here. But I always knew it was malice not cock-up. This just confirms it for me;
”But this article is not directly about the discovery of Plasmid DNA in the Pfizer and Moderna jabs (that has been now verified by 6 labs worldwide).
It’s about the special properties of the contents of that DNA and the RNA that is made from it, combined with the RNA that accompanies it (the jabs have the stated RNA in them as well as the stowaway DNA).
You see, it turns out that there are at least 5 different mechanisms for that DNA-RNA-protein combination to take that DNA into the nucleus of your cells. And that wasn’t on the advertising brochure was it?”
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/5-ways-to-skin-a-genetically-modified
In other words millions of people have time-bombs ticking away inside them. If heart failure doesn’t get them the cancers will.
My God.
Aye, that’s about the size of it. As I’ve said before, they want us dead, injured or infertile. Sounds deserving of a Nobel Prize doesn’t it?
Only in Clown World…
I’m interested who you think “they” are??
I know who they are…
Great article. Heart disease is heart disease. Heart damage is heart damage. It is never ‘mild’. And the study used an unstabbinated control group – no issues with those higher IQ people who said nein to poisons from Medical Nazis, criminals, lunatics and liars.
Yes!
I don’t know about IQ. I’ve come out with some pretty low scores, but then I never did like the arbitrary, absurd, unreal nature of desk tests. So boring, you see.
No. What I thought to myself in March 2020 was simply that if it was going to be as deadly dangerous as they said it was going to be, then I would need to up sticks to somewhere very remote. Which could be a very expensive exercise. So I decided to undertake Due Diligence.
The first form of Due Diligence was to look out of the window. No dead people.
The second form of Due Diligence was to check if the numbers of people dying every day (regardless of pathology) were anything above the norm. They weren’t.
Job done. Is that evidence of “High IQ”? I sincerely hope not…
As stewart likes to point out, there’s a difference between intelligence and wisdom.
So which is it? Eternal questions…
Doubtless you have both but you are certainly wise.
Well I suppose it’s nice to have all this detail. But the fact that fit, young, healthy athletes suddenly started dropping dead or being excused from sport for the rest of their lives in far greater numbers than ever before was a kind of giveaway.
And guess what – it didn’t start happening before the jabs.
I read this in the middle of the night. I recalled Vinay Prasad asking about a year ago, ‘What if everybody suffers sub-clinical myocarditis?’.
This should add some fuel for Andrew Bridgen’s parliamentary speech on October 20th.
Just a shout-out while I’m here for the fantastic symposium in Sweden on Saturday (which AB was on a panel at and regular on this site Dr David Bell presented at):
https://childrenshealthdefense.eu/doctors-appeal-symposium-sep-30-2023/
I understand that will broken out into chunks on CHD Europe and UKColumn soon. It’s all worth watching (that was my Saturday!), and there are many familiar names, but particularly interesting and a little different was a money strand and a superb presentation from Prof Richard Werner (of QE and ‘money as debt’ fame) on the history of banking and the road to CBDCs, followed by an equally interesting one by John Titus on the coming US debt crisis). Werner begins at 5:26 in.
I await the outcome of the post mortem on the M53 school bus driver to hear what the “medical issues” were that he suffered at the wheel.
And there will be several claims for damages against him, and in effect the bus company. Their insurer will end up having to shell out for that.
We won’t be told. Privacy, don’cha know.
Did we ever find out what caused the driver of the 4×4 to pile into the school tea- party?
Good question.
If there is an inquest and there is prior suspicion about the fundamental cause of the “medical issue” then it will be held with the press and general public excluded, and with the attendees warned not to speak to anybody about it. Some approved narrative will be created. That is the norm for coroner’s inquests. However, it is quite conceivable that this case has nothing to do with vaccines. We shall never know.
What of the AZ jabs that disappeared completely following bans in various European Countries? What was in them and are they equally dangerous?
Original report says they were excluded, insufficient numbers:
Subjects with unknown vaccination dates or with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Astra Zeneca) and miscellaneous vaccines were excluded when patients were stratified by time interval or type of vaccine due to the small sample size.
There is one group that remains unaffected – trans activists. They are heartless.
https://youtu.be/YU0VrC-33RE?si=_QYHooFKxURYLib5
A good heart these days is hard to find indeed
“…so please be gentle with this heart of mine”
One of my all time favourite singles.
Feargal Sharkey – magical voice.
I warned my adult sons about reports of myocarditis coming from Israel long before they were “invited” to be jabbed. My older son, then age 32 isn’t jabbed. My younger one (then age 30) had 2 Pfizer shots against my advice because he wanted to travel, but no boosters. He’s very sporty and I thank God that he has a desk-job AND had returned to live with me temporarily during the Covid lunacy, where his sporting opportunities were extremely limited.
After the jabs he went back to his desk and we were having quiet evenings and limited weekend activities due to the restrictions, so the chances of him suffering an adrenaline-induced heart attack were significantly reduced.
Since he’s slim, very fit and has no known health issues, I just hope and pray the danger period has passed and reduces further every year.
Everything crossed for your son.
Thank you.
The danger never passes – heart damage is permanent.
I haven’t seen this finding, this is very concerning, please can you cite the studies that confirm permanent heart damage caused by Covid vaccines?
ALL heart damage is permanernt.
For what it’s worth, I’m a big believer in the power of the human spirit and the occasonal prayer. The body has quite untapped powers of recuperation. You did your best, your son did what he thought was best – maybe the batches he got were the less harmful ones? .
Pfizer, Moderna etc must pay the compensation. The fraudulent testing and cover-ups invalidate any legal immunities and if necessary just enact retro-active legislation. Neither they nor the medics like Fauci nor the politicians like Johnson, Gove and Hancock should escape justice.
And the regulators who are supposed to protect us.
And the Media that suppressed the truth.
They still are.
The summary states:
“Asymptomatic patients who underwent PET/CT 1-180 days after their second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination showed increased myocardial 18Fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on images compared to nonvaccinated patients, but patients imaged >180 days after vaccination did not.”
None of the subjects had clinical myocarditis and the effect disappeared after 180 days, so it seems that the impact was mild and transient, perhaps not that concerning.
And many infections are somewhat mild and transient, thus no need to use potentially hazardous drugs to limit their effects.
More disgusting COVID fear mongering from the BBC this morning, health officials pushing the COVID “vaccine” again against the new variant even though it’s impossible for any vaccine to have been developed to cover a variant that has only just been detected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66963982
Also, the article (even though the headline is all COVID) includes information about the flu jab but it’s difficult at first reading to separate the two.
It is interesting that you cannot buy a covid injection privately in the UK. That suggests to me they are banned for most of the population. An acknowledgement by the authorities that they are dangerous?
It suggests that the private sellers can’t afford the insurance.
Are they even licensed? Certified? Or whatever happens in the twilight zone of medical substances. Maybe they cannot be prescribed privately because some process hoop hasn’t been passed.
Yes, you’re probably correct. They’re still on emergency use authorisation and the manufacturers still have their liability shield. Although, if fraud can be proved presumably the shield becomes worthless.
Dr Katalin Kariko and Dr Drew Weissman may find that they have received more of an albatross than a Nobel Prize!
Is the Nobel Prize for Medicine going the same way as the Nobel Prize for Peace, that is, a political gesture, essentially an end-of-year prize for getting the “right” answers, not breaking the school rules and for singing the school anthem in tune?
And the inventors of these heart-damaging DNA altering interventions get awarded the Nobel prize!!!!!!!! Words fail me!!!!
The entire IPCC team that injected Global Warming into the world’s minds also got a Nobel Prize. Medicine has become similarly politicized.
They may be the inventors, but who chose to deploy the vaccine, and was it morally justified? The equivalent question was raised in the recent Oppenheimer movie, notably at the end in the exchange between Oppenheimer and
BidenTruman. There is no easy answer as it all depends on modelling what would have happened if different decisions had been made. Perhaps in another eighty years some Hollywood film producer will make the movie “Kariko” and some yet-to-be-born actors and film professionals will get an Oscar.Come to think of it, perhaps Kariko and Weissman are essentially actors on a world stage. Or puppets.
Perfectly in keeping with the originator of the prize, the inventor of dynamite.
The finding confirms an earlier study (2022) that the vaccines injure the heart of all vaccine recipients.
Even if Bluemke’s assertion of only a mild impact holds true, the absence of any benefit makes any level of risk completely unacceptable.
11,000 excess deaths per month, affecting a large number of the young and not so much the very old? I don’t call that minor, he is using very loose English. Pandemic would suit quite well, it is in every country with any vax rate at all. “Safe and Effective”, at killing people at a much higher rate than even the other pandemic managed.
Why does this comes as no surprise and the heart isn’t the only organ that is damaged by the jabs. On the plus side I’ve just seen an advert for medical negligence specialists, looks like they’ll be busy.
I rather doubt that, the Government has underwritted the vaccine use, and suing the Government is very difficult and extremely expensive, partly because they have the entire tax take to fund litigation and hundreds of tame lawyers.
Don’t worry. Any vaccine-induced heart disease epidemic will be blamed on climate change.
It is already being blamed on waiting lists, which is not the issue, this is diagnosis! Waiting lists for GPOs might produce a tiny skew in the results.
There’s no doubt they do damage
but I am slightly irritated by the fact
that they tested 2.5 times more vaxxed than unvaxxed – wouldn’t that skew the results in favour of heart damage? Don’t get me wrong, these gene therapy experiments are horrific but shouldn’t they have tested roughly equal numbers from each group – or am I missing something?
Dependent on location – admitting to being unjabbed might be an issue.
In statistical terms the group size is irrelevant, as long as both groups are large enough to produce a statistically significant result. Remember it is hard to find the totally unvaxed!
Presumably with the exception of hearts belonging to the unvaccinated?
Wow, this is probably the most damning study of the jabs that I have seen yet, and that really says something!