PLEASE send your letters (as short as you like) to firstname.lastname@example.org and mark them ‘for possible publication’. We need your name and if possible, a county address, eg Yorkshire or London. We will include biographical details if you volunteer them. Letters may be shortened.
Police and the global elite
Should the police be impartial?
At this moment Ottawa Police Chief, Peter Sloly, is waging a war against his own people – those who try to follow a path outside a corrupt government narrative and wish to have a little self-determination. The ‘Truckers movement’ has brought this into sharp focus.
I thought I would look into Police Chief Sloly’s past, and was quite surprised at what I found.
Peter Sloly served as Ottawa deputy chief of police from 2009 to 2016. In April 2016 he joined Deloitte’s financial services as an executive director. I wondered what in his CV would make him a target for Deloitte’s financial services. His LinkedIn page may explain that. It says:
‘Private Sector and Policing Council to Address Cybercrime in Canada. For the first time in their respective histories, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) and the Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance (CATAAlliance) have joined forces to create a joint advisory body called the ‘eCrime Committee’ supporting the advancement of the national cybercrime strategy for Canada. This body of cyber experts will advise and support them on the operational aspects of the fight against cybercrime. The ECC will be comprised of police experts, innovative private sector leaders, academic and government observers to work with government departments, ministries, and agencies at federal, provincial, and local levels to undertake supportive policies and approaches that will make Canada a world leader in addressing the threat and harm of cybercrime.’
I guess this knowledge is what attracted Deloitte’s to Peter Sloly.
In October 2019 a month before the outbreak of the pandemic he left Deloitte’s and became Ottawa police chief. (An interesting coincidence is that the epidemiology lecturer from Hamburg University, Ursula Von Der Leyen, also came into her job as President of the EU at the end of 2019. She is now a leading advocate for digital ID cards, following the problem with rolling out vaccine passports.)
I then discovered that Deloitte’s was awarded a $44million no-bid contract by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States to build a website to manage scheduling, inventory, and reporting for Covid-19 vaccination. It was a disaster and they were accused of copyright infringement, however, this screams to me that the whole pandemic was foreseen by corporate powers and their minions were being shifted around on the world chess board. Planning or a premeditated crime? Maybe a question for the coming months.
For a bit of fun, I always like to look at which universities world leaders went to, to see who is involved in funding of those universities.
Peter Sloly went to McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. I was interested to see if the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds McMaster. This is the wording from the foundation web site. You couldn’t make it up.
$12million for the following:
‘To identify and address ethical challenges, ethics-related risk, and policy gaps that have the potential to undermine the impact of potential life-saving technologies and interventions in global health and development research.’
So we are putting our safety into the hands of people like Peter Sloly. Hard to believe really, there I was a builder digging holes and knocking down buildings in 2019 when plans were afoot that I never realised, never envisaged, but they were there. At least I woke up.
Give nuclear power a chance
The nuclear industry was blocked from attending COP26. There were about fifteen applications, so this emission-free and reliable source of power was eliminated from any debate. This makes no sense for any serious and proper decision-making process with averting the danger of climate change.
Considering the view of the climate cult that the end of the world is nigh because of carbon emissions, one would have thought that carbon-free nuclear had a serious chance of being our saviour. They obviously don’t think the situation is that bad, or the renewables lobby has been doing some behind-the-scenes nobbling.
This blocking is typical of the worst of the movement. They bang on about the ‘settled science’ of climate change, while ignoring the obvious cure in favour of the outrageous outputs of the mad inventor brigade, who can never remember such a time when money was so freely available to finance their fantasies with no actual outcome expected.
After all, if nuclear could – and would – solve a lot of our energy problems, such as giving us continuous power and making us independent of unreliable foreign sources, all at a known price, there must be some unspoken fear of it in the background.
That fear is probably what to do with the nuclear waste. Even if that was a problem, the world would still be saved, and disposing of waste would be a lesser problem – there would also be the luxury of time to deal with it. But waste has not been a problem so far, as nuclear power has been providing 10 per cent of world electricity from about 30 countries for half a century, making it the largest source of energy on the planet after oil and gas. Nuclear has been working all year round even when the winds are still and the sun does not shine, and it saves carbon output by gigatons every year.
It is therefore worrying to think that the UK is set to retire 14 of its 15 nuclear reactors by 2030. Meanwhile the Climate Change Committee and the National Grid have warned that electricity demand could double by 2050, and the present saviours of wind and solar have provided less than 20 per cent of Britain’s daily demand on 82 occasions in 2020,which is not promising for a bright future. If the entire country and its shoreline was to be covered with the things they would still be dependent on the weather.
The windmills present another problem, which is what happens when they reach the end of their lives and have to be replaced. They were manufactured and installed by foreign companies for the subsidies they attracted, and for the constraint payments they are given on the rare occasions when the grid does not want all their output. So far £1billion has been paid to them for not generating electricity.
To replace them – and sooner or later all 12,000 of them onshore will have to be replaced – will be expensive. Their originators will be long gone with their subsidy and constraint money, as well as their legitimate earnings, and will have moved on to the next business opportunity presented by another unthinking and gullible customer as daft as the UK government was.
If zero carbon is to be achieved, government has to keep an open mind and ignore the green fantasists and their doomster friends in the enviro-camps and give nuclear power its chance to save the day.
Should the English pay Scottish pensions?
Nicola Sturgeon’s implausible claim that Westminster would still pay Scottish pensions after independence is vastly more important than Boris Johnson’s dubious excuses over Downing Street parties.
In 2014, the then UK pensions minister, Steve Webb, made clear that it would be for an independent Scottish government to pay its own state pensions. As in Britain these are paid out of general taxation rather than any separate fund, this statement accords with both economic reality and common sense.
The absurd alternative would be that English people were taxed to pay the pensions of people in a separate country.
The cold reality is that on losing English subsidies of our deficit the tax base in Scotland would not be sufficient to support pensions and other public spending at the current levels.
This raises the question who does Nicola take for mugs – the English taxpayers, the Scottish voters or perhaps just SNP supporters?
Time to derail the climate change gravy train
The Green Brigade keep screaming at the climate sceptics ‘The Climate Science is settled’. It is settled only because so many people have climbed aboard the climate change gravy train. It is crowded with politicians, their advisers such as the Climate Change Committee, scientists, charities, engineers, green pressure groups, the professional climate demonstrators, the wind turbine and solar brigade, the red flag media, the climate quangos and consultants who conduct climate surveys providing the answer the client wants.
Then there are universities such as the University of East Anglia and leftie graduates who find climate research better than working. Remember the University of East Anglia with its revealing leaked emails? There is an army of climate change, carbon and Net Zero officers in every council in the land. No wonder council tax is escalating. Grants are freely being given to catch the mythical Carbon Capture and Storage beast and for dropping weights down a hole.
There are climate grants available for wave machines and tidal generators all producing negligible amounts of electricity. There are already carefully concealed green taxes of £11.2billion per year added to our electricity bills. The total cost to taxpayers, council taxpayers and businesses could be well over £100 billion a year once figures are added for the salaries, national insurance contributions, pensions, consultancy fees and research grants. Time to derail the climate change gravy train.
Who is going to foot the £81trillion Net Zero bill?
Liam Halligan in the Sunday Telegraph rightly says that poorer people ‘should not have to pay for net zero’ particularly when around 3million households are already in fuel poverty in the UK. So what will be the cost of net zero to the remaining 25million households and who will pay for it?
McKinsey estimates (DT Business 25-01-22) that net zero will cost 6.5 per cent of GDP on average over 30 years, a total of £81trillion. That equates to over £200,000 for each of the remaining households. Who is going to protect those households from the resulting increase in their taxes and fuel costs? Who will compensate them for the substantial erosion of their savings and pension pots?
In the meantime other big global emitters clearly have NO intention of following the UK’s kamikaze lead, but are happy to take business from us as we become increasingly uncompetitive and are less able to raise revenue, while businesses moving abroad will cause more CO2 emissions than before. That is all to halve the UK’s contribution of 0.00045ppm pa in its CO2 emissions. You could not make it up.
Roger J Arthur
No jab, no freedom
I am sick and fed-up of being told that we are being given our freedoms back, freedom to enjoy large gatherings, freedom to travel etc. No, what is meant is that there are freedoms – for the vaccinated. The news broadcasts should always express this condition, otherwise the cause and plight of the unvaccinated will become lost and we will again be derided as whingers. It is reinforcing segregation: don’t mention the ‘others’ and perhaps they’ll go away. We are now being ‘othered’ – again. My wife and I have a home in Spain, we haven’t been able to visit for two years, that is possibly 20 per cent of my remaining life stolen. And we cannot even now simply hop on a plane as we once did two years ago, even if we ran the gauntlet of getting there, the apparent freedom to return to the UK is not freedom. We will still have to test.
My wife and I have had Covid, we only know because, out of interest we tested whilst we suffered a mild cold recently, positive LFT. So we are assuming we have gained a degree of natural immunity. The cold wasn’t bad and I assume even if we suffered again it would be from Omicron which is mild. But the ground is still being prepared for a segregation passport by the continuation of this granting of freedoms – but only to the vaccinated!