Minutes of Meetings Where Chris Whitty Overruled Government Vaccine Advisers to Force Through Covid Vaccination of Children Released
By Will Jones
Minutes of key meetings held in September 2021 in which the U.K.’s four Chief Medical Officers agreed to overrule the Government’s vaccine advisers to push through the vaccination of children for COVID-19 have been released – and they’re damning.
They indicate:
- Significant undeclared conflicts of interest.
- No ethical input was sought or received by the CMOs.
- A divergence of views between CMOs including concerns over potentially significant unknown vaccine harms.
The minutes were obtained under a Freedom of Information request by campaign group UsForThem. They reveal that when the CMOs authorised the mass rollout of a Covid vaccine to 12 to 15 year olds – a decision taken despite the Government’s own expert vaccine advisory committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) having repeatedly declined to recommend it for healthy children – some of the parties involved in the critical meetings appear not to have declared potentially significant conflicts of interest.
They also show that some of the CMOs and their deputies raised concerns about the risk of exposing children to potentially significant known and unknown harms by proceeding with a mass rollout, but these concerns were set aside.
Despite the ethically contentious nature of their decision, the CMOs also appear neither to have sought nor received ethical input from the U.K. Government’s expert ethics committee.
The revelations come in a video released by UsForThem as part of a new series of exposés documenting serious pandemic wrongdoing.
In the present video, titled ‘JCVI Override‘, UsForThem founder Molly Kingsley explains that only one quarter of parents were aware that the JCVI had declined to recommend mass vaccination of 12-15 year-olds, and that just one in three say they would still have wanted their kids to be vaccinated had they known this at the time.
Kingsley, who is a lawyer by profession, told the Daily Sceptic that after four years’ worth of legal research into the pandemic era, her team has uncovered wrongdoing that they would not deem to be merely a “mistake”.
As lawyers and as parents, our view remains clear: that in a number of cases the wrongdoing of the pandemic period exceeded anything that could be termed purely ‘a mistake’. This video-cast series evidences examples and draws on four years’ worth of legal research and political campaigning from the team at UsForThem.
The first episodes are now available on YouTube. They include ‘Not Just a Mistake‘, which details how:
- In March 2020, Imperial College London published its seminal projections paper advising ‘lockdown until vaccination’, on the back of which U.K. Government imposed blanket lockdowns. Yet the public were never told that Imperial had just received $100 million from pharmaceutical industry donors.
- In January 2021, the U.K. Government imposed a masks-in-class mandate for children without having carried out a harm assessment. A harm assessment was not carried out for a further 17 months during which period children were required to endure extended periods of wearing masks for seven or eight hours each day.
- in Summer 2021, the U.K. Government appeared to sideline and then shut down its expert ethics committee after it criticised the ethics of U.K. Government vaccination policy, including the vaccination of children.
Another highlight is ‘What are they Hiding‘, which explains that datasets which might go some way to establishing whether there is a causal link between U.K. excess mortality trends and Covid vaccines have been confirmed to exist and to have been shared with vaccine manufacturers but are being withheld from the public and concerned Parliamentarians. The video goes through the evidence showing the 18-month refusal of Ministers and senior officials to disclose these data, and delves into the justifications that the British authorities – including the MHRA, the ONS, the Department for Health and the UKHSA – seem to be hiding behind, including claims that:
- the data are “commercially sensitive”;
- disclosure would be likely to harm the mental health of families of the deceased;
- disclosure would breach the privacy of already deceased persons.
UsForThem has been working alongside others behind the scenes to try to extract these key data for nearly 18 months. Kingsley says the matter will now be resolved “in the courts”.
You can keep up to date with UsForThem’s work by following it on X and subscribing to its YouTube channel.
In Latest Threat to German Democracy, Dangerous Fascist Elon Musk Tweets Six Words About Alternative für Deutschland
By Eugyppius
German democracy, which has existed undeterred since 1949 but is somehow always shaken to its foundations whenever anybody sings the wrong song or holds a televised debate with the wrong person, is once again on life support.
Christian Lindner, head of the market-liberal Free Democrats, did much to trigger the present catastrophe on December 1st, when he said that the Free Republic should “dare more Milei and more Musk”. Because there is little distinction between praising Milei and Musk and demanding the return of National Socialism, there ensued a brief period of establishment hyperventilation.
Less than a week later, CDU chief and probable future German Chancellor Friedrich Merz did his part to denounce Lindner’s political wrongthink in a statement to Deutschlandfunk:
So neither the Argentinian President nor, how shall I put it, the American entrepreneur Elon Musk – let’s put it plainly – are role models for German politics in my view. I don’t see where we can find similarities in German politics. What Christian Lindner meant will probably remain his secret.
The next day, Merz repeated the same denunciations, only more harshly, explaining to one of our extremely adult and far-sighted pantsuit talkshow hosts that “To be honest, I was completely appalled that Christian Lindner made that comparison.” Milei, Merz said, is “really trampling on the people there”.
Yesterday, all of this came to the notice of the (honestly rather tiresome) influencer Naomi Seibt, who posted a video statement to X rehearsing all of this old news to her largely American audience.
Elon Musk then brought down the hammer on the German democratic order, retweeting Seibt’s video and remarking that “Only the AfD can save Germany”.
Today a lot of very important and influential people got out of bed and took to their keyboards to denounce Musk’s election interference. His statement might be illegal, at any rate it is very likely fascist and certainly it is beyond the pale for an American to voice an opinion about German politics. Germans absolutely never, ever, utter the slightest word about American politics and certainly would never advance negative opinions about the American President in the middle of an election campaign. Our Foreign Office would never try to fact-check an American presidential debate! Our journalists would never depict President Donald Trump dressed as a Ku Klux Klan member or offering the Hitler salute or decapitating the Statue of Liberty! That’s just not done!
Like a great stream of green diarrhoea, the outrage is pouring fourth. Matthias Gebauer, who writes for Der Spiegel, observes that “Elon Musk… is openly promoting the AfD” and concludes that “Putin is not the only one who loves this party”. Erik Marquardt, head of the Green faction in the European Parliament, says that “The EU Commission and EU member states should no longer stand by and watch as billionaires misuse media and algorithms to influence elections and strengthen and normalise Right-wing extremists”. This “is an attack on democracy”, and “has nothing to do with freedom of expression”. Dennis Radtke, CDU representative in the European Parliament, concludes that “Musk… is declaring war on democracy” and that “the man is a menace”. We are also under siege via “interference from Putin”; “the erosion of our democracy is being fuelled from both within and without”. Julian Röpcke, who writes for BILD, believes that “This is interference in the German election campaign by a tech billionaire who uses algorithms to decide what gets heard”. If Germany does not “respond with penalties, there will be no help for our eroding democracy”.
Jonas Koch, at Die Zeit, complains that “the richest man in the world is now campaigning for Right-wing populists in Germany”.
Tech billionaire Elon Musk has spoken out in favour of the Alternative for Germany party in the German Parliamentary election campaign. “Only the AfD can save Germany,” he wrote on his online service X.
You can almost see Mr. Koch before you, clasping his pearls. He notes that the Government is doing its best to weather this unprecedented assault on the German republic. He quotes longsuffering Government spokesperson Christian Hoffmann saying that “It’s not the first time that Elon Musk has commented on German politics”. Olaf Scholz, he notes, “has been concerned about… X since Musk assumed control of it”, but he has inexplicably not yet decided to delete Government X accounts.
Nor is this Musk’s only sin against all that is right, free and good:
Musk is not only increasingly involved in politics in the U.S., where he is advising U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and is to head a commission to reduce Government spending. He is also exerting influence in the U.K. He recently announced a donation of up to $100 million to the Right-wing populists around Brexit pioneer Nigel Farage.
As early as the summer, Musk had praised the AfD after the European elections. The party was labelled as Right-wing extremist, “but the political positions of the AfD that I have read about do not sound extremist”, he wrote on X.
Der Spiegel agrees that this is “Not the first time that this super-rich man has interfered in German politics”. Musk “repeatedly takes potshots at Germany”, he has “insulted” such national saints as “the former Chancellor Angela Merkel”, he has “criticised Chancellor Olaf Scholz”, and most ominously of all he has “even responded to tweets from the far-Right Thuringian AfD leader Björn Höcke”.
He responded to Höcke! Imagine that! It is just the height of political depravity, all that responding.
Now the billionaire and confidant of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has tweeted again…
Tweeted again! The absolute madman! Will he never stop?
…and made a barely concealed election recommendation for the AfD. “Only the AfD can save Germany,” Musk claimed in a tweet. …
Under Trump, Musk is set to become co-head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency. The goal of the institution: to reduce bureaucracy, eliminate regulations and cut spending. This could result in Musk weakening or even abolishing those rules that personally limit him.
That’s right, Musk wants to make American Government more efficient so that he can suspend elections and establish himself as American dictator. It takes truly perceptive journalists, like whoever wrote this unsigned Spiegel screed, to see through his clever lies.
Musk constantly uses X for political influence. He not only interferes in German politics from there, but also tries to exert pressure on U.S. Congressmen. … Since Wednesday, he has fired off various tweets to fuel the U.S. budget dispute. He also recently received representatives of the British far-Right [sic] party Reform U.K. at Trump’s private residence Mar-a-Lago in Florida.
He is like a little antidemocratic Hitler, is Elon Musk, just tweeting whatever he wants, receiving guests, influencing… things.
But the gold medal for most outrageous reaction must go to Florian Harms, Editor-in-Chief of t-online. Harms writes for a slightly downmarket publication and so he has to enact more indignation than everybody else.
“This sentence is an outrage,” Harms declares.
There’s always a lot going on on the big-shot platform X. Since Ober-Big-Shot Elon Musk bought the social media company and reprogrammed its algorithms to inject poison, most posts there have devolved into unfounded claims, wild insults or outrageous nonsense. You can safely ignore it.
Unfortunately, what the “Grökraz” himself posts on X cannot be ignored. This Friday, our “greatest Croesus of all time” felt compelled to intervene in the German federal election campaign with a one-liner: “Only the AfD can save Germany.” … That’s his prerogative; after all, anyone can now post nonsense on his platform.
Harms is clearly highly opposed to platforms where anyone can just post anything. People should only be allowed to post things of which Harms approves. Particularly someone like Musk should not be allowed to just post whatever he wants, because Musk is “a global entrepreneur” and therefore “bears special responsibility”:
His words carry weight because they influence international politics, stock markets and social moods. More than 208 million people follow Musk on X; he has configured the digital machines so that his posts are displayed more often than others. This gives his radical views a disproportionate amount of attention, which is how he makes politics – without democratic legitimisation.
Vast swathes of the German corporate sector denounce the AfD all the time without the slightest “democratic legitimisation”, and as far as I know Harms has never complained about that even once. If Musk were attacking AfD, of course, Harms would be totally thrilled with it.
The so-called Alternative for Germany is a crazy party… [A] growing number of its officials are Right-wing radicals and enemies of democracy. This is well known and can be read in in the various reports by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
German political discourse is so insane, I always feel slightly ashamed translating this stuff for you. It feels like dishing out embarrassing family secrets.
Only someone who is either clueless or maliciously intent on spreading misinformation would think that this party alone could contribute something constructive for the good of Germany.
Unfortunately, based on everything we’ve heard from Elon Musk in recent months, we have to assume the latter. This man wants to undermine constitutional and democratic institutions, abolish the welfare state and create a Darwinian world in which the law of the jungle applies. It’s bad enough that he is now gaining so much influence in the USA. This must not happen in Germany. …
Democratic politicians should… refute Musk’s claim. And… they should take a particularly critical look at future investments by Musk’s companies in this country. Consumers also bear a responsibility: Anyone who is still considering buying a Tesla must accept the accusation of supporting a destroyer of democracy. [emphasis mine]
This is all so boundlessly ridiculous, it’s like the entire country is suffering from borderline personality disorder.
If any of these people sincerely believe that Musk’s tweet will have any influence on the German elections in February, they are clinically insane. The only thing here that might influence something is the unceasing hysteria of German establishment discourse, which seems intent on alienating powerful figures at the centre of empire, all for the indecent and passing thrill of a cheap moral orgasm. Any political order that is truly threatened by a six-word remark from anybody – even should it come from the wealthiest, most antidemocratic, fascistic and powerful man in the world – is not a political order worth having.
This article originally appeared on Eugyppius’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here.
To Manifest a Crisis
The Cambridge Dictionary has declared that the word of the year is “Manifest”. It was looked up 130,000 times, the publication says, and hence is one of the most curious words of the year.
The word jumped from use in the self-help community and on social media to being widely used across mainstream media and beyond, as celebrities such as singer Dua Lipa, Olympic sprinter Gabby Thomas and England striker Ollie Watkins spoke of manifesting their success in 2024.
Ah. Manifesting is not about manifesting this or that. It is about manifesting success. In this it resembles the unintended consequences of Adam Smith. The unintended consequences were not any old unintended consequences, but good ones: consequences we would have intended if we had been able to intend them. Hopeful, we humans.
The article about this on the Cambridge University website continues:
Mentions of it gained traction during the pandemic and have grown in the years since, especially on TikTok and other social media, where millions of posts and videos used the hashtag #manifest.
They use “to manifest” in the sense of: “to imagine achieving something you want, in the belief that doing so will make it more likely to happen.” Yet, manifesting is an unproven idea that grew out of a 100-year-old spiritual philosophy movement.
I like that “Yet”. In fact, I like “an unproven idea”. What is a “proven idea”? Well, I suppose we must be in the condescending and contemptuous world of J.G. Frazer’s Golden Bough in which we, the high and mighty ivory-towered armchair sociologists, patiently assemble all manner of irrational nonsense and try to explain the limited rationality of that nonsense for the deluded savage and primitive. Frazer was a sort of Comtean, who thought humanity had left the ages of magic and metaphysics behind and become ‘positive’. For the positivist the only good ideas are proven ones: i.e., [Sergeant major’s voice] Ones that we can prove; [A drop in tone] Er, ones that we can find evidence for, perhaps; [Mumbling like a back-row schoolboy] Er, ones we agree are the ones we are going to have, er, right, sir?
Now, there is a recipe to an article in the Daily Sceptic. It is to find an article about something which has depended on an expert, and then kick the expert in the shins. You know, BBC plays ping and Chris Morrison plays pong. And so, by inverse deduction, we come to the view that the recipe for an article in the established press is to find something and then ask an expert about it. You know, all those Guardian or BBC articles that begin “Experts say…” and which go on to present an interest group’s opinion as if it is a story.
Now, normally, I would only criticise a man once. But Sander van der Linden has appeared again to complain about this business of manifesting. I recently had a crack at van der Linden and his colleagues for creating computer games, sometimes using AI, ostensibly in order to enable us to detect misinformation i.e., actually to enable us to become a lot better at perpetuating misinformation.
But he comes in again, happily, on hearing the word ‘expert’.
(I wish I was an expert.
I’d wear an expert hat.
I’d say whatever the Guardian wants
On this or that.)
Excuse the doggerel, but it is hard to resist. Here is Prof. van der Linden, after a bit of editorial chuff:
However experts warn that ‘manifesting’ has no scientific validity, despite its popularity. It can lead to risky behaviour or the promotion of false and dangerous beliefs, such as that diseases can be simply wished away.
“Manifesting is what psychologists call ‘magical thinking’ or the general illusion that specific mental rituals can change the world around us,” said Cambridge University social psychologist Professor Sander van der Linden, author of The Psychology of Misinformation.
I like the word “risky”. “False and dangerous beliefs”? Ah, they must mean: 1. That the ‘pandemic’ was controlled by Government interventions. 2. That there is a climate emergency. 3. That we can re-engineer the world in a DEI direction without causing catastrophic civilisational collapse. No, of course they don’t. Anyhow, vdL, as I shall call him, continues:
“Manifesting gained tremendous popularity during the pandemic on TikTok with billions of views, including the popular 3-6-9 method which calls for writing down your wishes three times in the morning, six times in the afternoon and nine times before bed. This procedure promotes obsessive and compulsive behaviour with no discernible benefits. But can we really blame people for trying it, when prominent celebrities have been openly ‘manifesting’ their success? ‘Manifesting’ wealth, love and power can lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointment. Think of the dangerous idea that you can cure serious diseases simply by wishing them away,” said Van der Linden.
“There is good research on the value of positive thinking, self-affirmation and goal-setting. Believing in yourself, bringing a positive attitude, setting realistic goals and putting in the effort pays off because people are enacting change in the real world. However, it is crucial to understand the difference between the power of positive thinking and moving reality with your mind – the former is healthy, whereas the latter is pseudoscience.”
As I say to my sons when they are speculating in the wrong direction, “Bzzzz!” This vdL is an expert wasp banging his head on the sides of a whisky glass, crazily trying to go left and right at once. It is good, it is bad, I am Dickens, this is a Tale of Two Cities, it was the best of guillotines, it was the worst of guillotines… On the one hand, he is sympathetic to the TikTok generation, and believes in positive thinking; but, ha, ha, ha, he doesn’t want positive thinking to be too positive. No, you shouldn’t imagine having won, instead imagine that you might win: let’s have a probabilistic positive thinking. Try that on a fighter, vdL, and see if he lasts long in the ring.
Anyhow, the serious question is, ‘Can we move reality with our mind?’ And the answer to this is ‘Yes’. Our vdL seems to be the sort of positivist, or late Comtean materialist. Mind is a sort of mental health problem only: and the world spins around in atomistic manner, like a diagram in a physics textbook. But he is manifestly, yes, manifestly, wrong: and no, I am not ‘manifesting’ his wrongness. It is already manifest. Can we move reality with mind? Yes. How? Well, consider the state, or money, or credits and debts, or rights and duties, or any sort of story about ourselves. Consider the concept of a king. Bees have never thought of a Queen Bee being a Queen Bee. Arguably, it is we Homo sapiens, who thought of that: we first had the idea of a queen, and then we applied it to bees, by analogy: since we come out of a civilisation, a world, in which almost everything is a result of its having been a reality moved by mind. Trivial example, but almost everything is an example.
Or [Threatening music] think of the COVID-19 protocols. I do believe that the BBC, the Guardian, Her Majesty’s Government, the WHO and Lord knows who else, and I quote, were “moving reality with their minds” in early 2020. Were they not? Politics, dear Professor, politics. (If ‘representative democracy’ is not magic, I don’t know what is.)
To speak absolutely plainly, let me bring up the most egregious example of all. Everyone knows, everyone here, at least, about Event 201. Let me quote from the relevant official website.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18th 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated areas where public-private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences.
Hmm. Sounds like manifesting to me. “This training tabletop exercise was based on a fictional scenario. The inputs experts used for modelling the potential impact were fictional.” Hmm. So these geniuses all sat in a circle and – manifested a pandemic? Now, they, being positivists, called it “pandemic preparedness”. But I, not being a positivist, call it “manifesting crisis”. Yes, indeed, vdL, even scientists sit around and manifest.
I think that the event that we call COVID-19 would never have happened if all these busybodies and pseudo-scientific corporatists had not sat around manifesting. And, for that matter, there would have been no excuse even for the minor fuss of early 2020 if the biologists had stopped trying to manifest viral destruction in the name of ‘research’ (ironic laughter) with their gain-of-function malignities. Almost everything in the pandemic was manifested. First of all, excuses were manifested: someone conjured up the image of a pangolin. Then masks were manifested. Finally, vaccines were manifested: and I mean, literally, manifested. Everyone cried, ‘There must be a vaccine!’ and lo and behold, there was a vaccine. It didn’t matter that it barely worked, or worked only insignificantly, or to whatever extent the later trustworthy scientists will tell us, and it didn’t matter that it was, in effect, an untested brew of grandiose and, again, only later to be confirmed, disastrous consequences. There had to be a vaccine, and so like the little mental TikTokers they were, the scientists went away and manifested one.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
Former Mermaids Chief Vows to Defy Puberty Blocker Ban at New Trans Clinic
By Will Jones
A former Chief Executive of the charity Mermaids, Susie Green, has vowed to defy the nationwide ban on puberty blockers at her new trans clinic by importing the drugs via the EU. The Telegraph has the story.
Susie Green said Anne Trans Healthcare, which describes itself as helping “trans youth of all ages” to access puberty blockers, would continue to provide “legal routes to gender-affirming healthcare”.
Last week, the Government announced a nationwide ban on the drugs, which stop the onset of puberty and had been routinely given to children questioning their gender.
In April, the Cass Review, led by the paediatrician Baroness Cass, found there was “remarkably weak” evidence to support their prescription for children with gender dysphoria.
Ms. Green, who was Chief Executive at Mermaids until 2022, co-founded Anne Trans Healthcare in 2023.
The organisation’s website claims that it offers a “legal route” for under-18s to access puberty blockers by organising prescriptions from doctors based abroad. They are then collected and brought to Britain from European Union countries by the person with the prescription.
Jolyon Maugham KC, the Director of the Good Law Project, backed the method of procuring puberty blockers earlier this year.
He wrote on social media: “So you can get your EU prescription fulfilled at an EU pharmacy and lawfully bring those puberty blockers back into the U.K.”
Ms. Green said puberty blockers had a “positive impact” on children with gender dysphoria and that her charity would still help children access them despite the ban.
She told the Times: “We will continue to do so despite a U.K.-wide ban. We do it because to do otherwise would be morally and ethically wrong. The ban is cruel, prejudicial and frankly inhumane.” …
Mermaids was reprimanded by the Charity Commission in October for a series of controversial decisions, including its promotion of puberty blockers and chest binders to children.
Worth reading in full.
Majority of Brits Receive More in Benefits Than They Pay in Taxes
By Will Jones
More than half of people in the U.K. receive more in benefits than they contribute in taxes, official figures show – and it’s only going to get worse. The Telegraph has more.
A total of 52.6% lived in households that received more from the state than they paid to the Treasury last year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The figures underscore the challenge facing Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves as they try to tackle a ballooning sickness benefit bill and pressures from an ageing population.
The analysis, which reveals a decrease from 53.6% the previous year and covers the 12 months to March 2023, factors in both cash benefits and the use of public services such as the NHS, schools and free childcare.
Working-age people are typically net contributors to the state – meaning they pay more in direct and indirect taxes than they receive in benefits and public services.
However, even among this group, 45.3% received more from the state than they paid in taxes, although this partially reflects benefits relating to education and childcare.
Meanwhile, pensioners are overwhelmingly classed as net recipients, with 85.3% receiving more from the Government than they contribute.
The latest findings have been released as Britain struggles with stagnant growth, faltering public services and a tax burden heading towards a post-war high, inflicting ever greater pain on workers.
These pressures are only set to intensify as the population ages and more people become so-called net recipients in retirement, with the number of over-85s set to double by 2045 to 3.1 million.
No wonder we can’t afford anything.
Worth reading in full.
News Round-Up
By Will Jones
- “Why Labour bigwigs already wonder if this will be Starmer’s first – and only Christmas – in Downing Street” – Labour MPs have begun to think the unthinkable, says Dan Hodges in the Mail.
- “Should we all be getting just a little bit worried for Sir Keir Starmer?” – The Prime Minister appears to be suffering from PDS – Progressive Derangement Syndrome, says the Telegraph‘s Camillla Tominey. “Characterised by an inability to acknowledge how bad your decision-making has been, the condition is typically fuelled by a moral superiority complex. Famous sufferers include the Archbishop of Canterbury, Kamala Harris and the Duchess of Sussex.”
- “Tory donations exceed Labour’s as Starmer’s popularity plummets” – Conservative donations pulled ahead of Labour’s as confidence collapsed in the Government only a few months after it was elected, says the Telegraph.
- “‘Two-tier’ BBC refuses to play Keir Starmer parody despite airing anti-Thatcher song” – The BBC has been accused of “two-tier broadcasting” following its refusal to play the Keir Starmer parody ‘Freezing This Christmas’ despite airing a song critical of Margaret Thatcher (in 1980), reports the Telegraph.
- “No pensioner should ever vote Labour again” – The palpable sense of betrayal among millions of retirees will not easily be forgotten, says Ros Altmann in the Telegraph.
- “Farage ‘hasn’t the faintest idea’ how to manage the economy, says Reeves” – The Chancellor has claimed the Reform leader “hasn’t a clue” how to tackle the cost of living crisis as she refused to apologise for her tax raids, reports the Telegraph.
- “Rachel Reeves told to halt diversity drive that will cost City £1 billion” – Tory front benchers have written to the Chancellor objecting to regulations which will force firms to collect data on inclusion, the Telegraph reports.
- “Councils revolt over Labour’s tax raid on farmers” – In recent weeks, almost two dozen councils have passed motions calling on the Chancellor and Environment Secretary to axe the ‘tractor tax’ measure, which they say is an “assault” on the countryside, reports the Telegraph.
- “Who is the Magdeburg attack suspect? A Saudi doctor and ‘critic of Islam’” – Identified by local media as Taleb al-Abdulmohsen, the man suspected of driving into a crowd of shoppers in Germany is a psychiatrist and Muslim apostate, says the Times.
- “Germany was warned by Saudi Arabia over Christmas market killer” – Saudi Arabia says it repeatedly warned the German Government about the extremist views of the man who drove a car into a Christmas market killing at least five people, including a nine-year-old, and injuring hundreds more, reports the Times.
- “Magdeburg Christmas Market Attack” – Eugyppius on the terror attack.
- “Magdeburg suspect prompts more questions than answers” – In UnHerd, international relations expert Ralph Schoellhammer says troubling questions remain about the Christmas market attacker: “While the Magdeburg attack might not fit the usual pattern of an Islamist terror attack, it also doesn’t match the behaviour of a Right-wing extremist.”
- “Net Zero ‘grocery tax’ to push up shopping bills by £1.4 billion” – A new ‘grocery tax’ designed to achieve the Government’s Net Zero targets will push up household shopping bills by up to £1.4 billion a year, the Telegraph reports.
- “Ed Miliband’s Net Zero mania isn’t just a threat to energy security. It’s making us so reliant on China, he’s now a threat to national security” – The Energy Secretary justifies his dash to decarbonise the electricity grid by claiming it will free us from dependence on the fossil fuels of foreign dictators, notes Andrew Neil in the Mail. But it’s making us dangerously reliant on China.
- “Should I become Lord Young of Loftus Road?” – In the Spectator, Toby wonders if he’ll ever achieve as much as his father, a pillar of the Left-wing establishment who was also made a life peer in his early 60s.
- “Tories must truly have a death wish if they want Kemi Badenoch to fail” – Troubling times need serious leaders. Kemi can be that, but only if the sniping ends and the party unites behind her, says Janet Daley in the Telegraph.
- “The Trump effect will benefit Farage – and cost the Tories” – When in power, the Tories didn’t sort out illegal immigration, reduce legal immigration or cut the tax burden, and with Trump heading to the White House they’re paying the price, says Patrick O’Flynn in the Spectator.
- “Trump appoints British TV producer as his special envoy to the U.K.” – Donald Trump has appointed British TV Producer Mark Burnett, who worked with him after creating the U.S. series The Apprentice, as his special envoy to the U.K.
- “Robby Starbuck: the capitalist engaged in a ‘war on woke’” – The Times profiles the 35 year-old American activist who has forced a string of major companies to abandon diversity initiatives after threatening boycotts.
- “Academic freedom needs legal safeguards” – Violations of academic freedom are endangering the progress of knowledge and the pursuit of truth, says Abhishek Saha in the Critic.
- “Francis Fukuyama on the World in 2025” – In a Substack tour d’horizon, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss the fall of Assad, the rise of China, the crisis in Europe and what awaits the United States under Trump.
- “Who is the worst political commentator?” – The deadline for the prestigious ‘Most Odious Political Commentator of the Year’ award is approaching, says Rod Liddle in the Spectator. “Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart’s joint bid is so far out in front of the pack, that the result is surely a foregone conclusion. But this should not deter us from running through some of the other noble contenders.”
- “Telegraph sale in limbo as Ministers weigh up whether to intervene” – The Redbird IMI deadline for exclusive talks with Dovid Efune has expired as the funders baulk at the price tag and the Government decides whether to intervene, reports the Times.
- “Is the Kursk operation still worth the cost?” – As Ukrainian soldiers question the value of holding a fragment of Russian territory over defending their own homeland, the reality of their situation looms large, says Svitlana Morenets in the Spectator.
- “In 2024, our insane asylum rules became impossible to ignore” – The ‘human rights’ of foreign criminals are routinely prioritised over the safety of law-abiding people, says Rakib Ehsan in Spiked.
- “A food apocalypse is coming” – There’s no plan to feed Britain in a crisis, warns James Rebanks in UnHerd.
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.