PLEASE send your letters (as short as you like) to info@conservativewoman.co.uk 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.
***
We don’t have a ‘Conservative’ Party any more
Dear Editor
What is happening in the Conservative Party? They want a new leadership between Rishi Sunak, who supported lockdowns and argued against them only when it was politically expedient and a year and a half too late, and likes the idea of a digital financial system under the control of government like China’s social credit, and Penny Mordaunt, who can’t define what a woman is and is best buds with Bill Gates.
I’m coming to the conclusion that we don’t have a ‘Conservative’ Party.
Are we to spend the rest of the party’s term in office having consecutive leadership bids from PM candidates who have not won a general election?
Meanwhile people can’t afford to heat their homes. Ministers need to get on with the job and run the country.
Lucy Murphy
***
Tory MPs are more like a wing of the Labour Party
Dear Editor
When Conservative MPs will not respect their members’ choice of party leader and prime minister; when they will not respect their voters’ desires for firm control of immigration, for law and order and for rewarding hard graft; when they have provided no resistance to the reckless increase in government borrowing and the national debt to the unprecedented sum of £3trillion; when they zealously pursue the financially and economically ruinous policy of Net Zero; when year after year they are content for the BBC to pump out left-wing propaganda and set the political agenda; when they will not challenge the progressive policies carried out by civil servants in open defiance of their government; when they will defend neither freedom of speech nor any socially conservative cause; when they are content to be in office but not in power; when they are more interested in fighting each other than the opposition; indeed, when they act more like a wing of the Labour party than like its opponents, why should I lend my vote to the Conservative Party?
Otto Inglis
Fife
***
Fighting back against Pfizer
Dear Editor
There were some good pieces on Covid this week. I was particularly incensed by the Pfizer Executive’s jocund admission that they didn’t know if their product prevented transmission, prior to release. Various high profile commentators said that “criminal investigations” and “prosecutions” should follow.
Who would initiate these? I don’t think any legal authorities, anywhere, want to rock the boat. However, if an experienced lawyer were to propose an action against Pfizer, then if there was a crowdfunding appeal for the cost I’d very likely contribute. It’s time to fight back, and this might be one way we can do it.
Anyone know a good lawyer?
Roland O’Brien
West Sussex
***
The BBC licence fee revolt is growing
Dear Editor
I have not used the BBC since the fear propaganda began in December 2019, when my licence elapsed. Since then I have received increasingly threatening letters, very much like a Harry Potter Howler, whereby unnamed people will turn up at my home and demand entry! I decided that I would take similar action against the BBC and have sent the attached letter with an invoice for my time. Might I suggest that it’s a tactic all non-licence holders could adopt, as it will keep their customer services and revenue director busy, and perhaps they will even get the message.
Tracy Jones
Operations Director
TV Licensing
Darlington
DL98 1TL
Dear Sir,
Re: Official Notice – Invoice for Services
Please find attached an invoice for services to TV Licensing and the BBC.
This is for services not utilised by your Corporation or by the outsourced debt collection agency, one of the many funded by the taxpayer. You may note that, frustrating as it is to myself, the non-payment for these services not used by your corporations have as yet not forced me to resort to harassment, threats or other such behaviour – although I recognise that this is a strategy that the BBC prefers to adopt. Likewise I do not, and have chosen not to make use of the range of propaganda and indoctrination products your corporation offers since 2019.
There are, as I am sure you appreciate, millions if not billions of companies across the world providing goods and services I do not buy or use. Can you imagine the time it would take to write, telephone or go online to every one of these businesses to inform them that I do not want their products? If that were the case, no work would ever get done, no one would have any wages and there would be no BBC to harass the population with menaces and threats of imprisonment. Can you imagine if every company throughout the UK were to behave this way? I imagine the courts would be busy and the jails would be full.
However, in the spirit of equity, I have decided that, where the BBC leads I and many other companies should follow. Consequently I will invoice you for non-use of my services. I will continue to send these invoices on a monthly basis with increasingly threatening language and finally may resort to legal action. I am sure you are in agreement with this principle as it is one you yourselves adopt.
Yours faithfully,
Tracy Jones
***
Dear Editor
Just to say well done to you, Kathy, for making a stand and highlighting the totalitarian bullying from the TV Licensing mafia.
More and more of us are stopping our TV licence as the BBC becomes more like a CCP propaganda channel.
We are sick to the teeth of their bias, wokeness and disgusting behaviour during the plandemic.
Hopefully more people will follow your example.
Michael Carr
***
The zero worth of Net Zero
Dear Editor
Following on from Alwyn Davies’s letter last week, this is my similar calculation: The concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is currently around 420 parts per million, i.e. about 1 part per 2,400. Approximately 5 per cent of the atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, ie 1 part per 48,000. The UK is responsible for 1 per cent of this, ie 1 part per 4,800,000. So if we achieve Net Zero by 2050 we will have reduced the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 1 part in 4.8 million. What possible beneficial effect will that have? And at what cost?
Jerry Lanning
***
Police must get tough with eco-vandals
Dear Editor
On Monday yet another eco-demonstration, this time by Just Stop Oil. This was an apparent attempt to disrupt the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace. The eco-demonstrators are seriously disrupting society, creating greenhouse gases and wasting police time when the police should be solving crime. Firm action is needed against the activists in Affordable Energy, Extinction Rebellion, Tyre Extinguishers, Insulate Britain, Just Stop Oil, Animal Rebellion, The Fridays for Future Movement and other radical groups. The police must stop dancing and skateboarding with eco-demonstrators and asking those superglued to the road if they are comfortable and would they like a glass of water or a cup of tea. Demonstrators should be arrested, spend the night in jail and then be fast tracked early the next morning into court and sentenced. Those on taxpayer-funded welfare benefits and Scottish university students who get free education worth £9,000 a year, should have these payments suspended for a period of time dependent on the severity of the offence.
Clark Cross
Linlithgow
***
The Earth is not a greenhouse
Dear Editor
Warming alarmists claim: ‘Earth’s atmosphere acts like the glass in a greenhouse.’ This is false.
Glass is largely transparent to incoming solar radiation which warms whatever is inside the greenhouse. If the greenhouse had no walls (like the atmosphere), warmed greenhouse air would rise by convection, escape out via the open sides, and heavy cooler air near to the ground would flow in to take its place. This open ‘greenhouse’ would stay close to outside temperature.
What causes a real greenhouse to warm is the solid transparent roof and the closed walls. The glass roof welcomes incoming solar radiation but the solid enclosure prevents this warmed inside air from escaping.
In a real greenhouse, operators shut vents to prevent warm air from escaping (or open them when they wish to lower the inside temperature). They also pump CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage plant growth (but the Greens want to starve plants by restricting CO2).
The Earth’s atmosphere has no firm roof or walls. Solar heating at the surface just causes that hot air to rise and it cools either by radiation or adiabatic expansion. It is replaced by cooler air.
The Earth is not a greenhouse.
Viv Forbes
Australia
***
Climate change facts to give your MP
Dear Editor
I AM encouraging those concerned about the disastrous Net Zero policy to send the following letter to their MP.
Roger Arthur
W Sussex
Dear MP
We are told that ‘most scientists’ agree on climate change, but we can’t be sure of what question they were asked, how many were qualified to answer and how many might lose their funding by giving the ‘wrong’ answer. But the climate has always changed over time and this is surely about identifying the main cause(s) and how much humans influence the climate. So here is an unambiguous question for you and for British scientists.
In 2020 the net global increase in atmospheric CO2 levels rose from a 60-year average of 1.6 parts per million (ppm) pa to 2.5ppm. That was 4,600 times the UK’s average annual emissions over that time. That is based on IPCC’s estimate that humans contribute 3 per cent of the net annual increase and that the UK contributes 1 per cent of that 3 per cent. (Some consider the 3 per cent figure to be high.)
Most of that 54 per cent increase in CO2 levels (in 2020) was clearly due to natural (not human) emissions and it came after a fall in human emissions, showing the insignificance of the UK’s contribution.
In 12 days, China emits the same amount of CO2 as the UK does in a year and is building three times more coal-fired power stations than the rest of the world.
The UK has led the way in the drive for Net Zero with disastrous consequences, the cost of energy in the UK rising to around twice the average for a Western country. Blind pursuit of the policy will further increase fuel poverty and the risk of power cuts, while the further cost increases will make British industry even more uncompetitive.
So do you seriously think that paying around £5trillion (£200,000 per household) to win this global race to the bottom is justified, when more UK businesses will move overseas only to emit more CO2 than before?
Before answering, recall i) that the sun is the primary driver of climate; ii) that there is no global warming model which factors in all drivers and feedback loops; iii) that IPCC predictions have been flawed; iv) that natural CO2 levels follow global temperature and v) that water vapour has a bigger greenhouse impact than CO2.
I look forward to your considered response.
