Blog

<figure id="figure-1edq0gc6lem4u6o4yd" class=""><img id="1edq0gc6lem4u6o4yd" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/33bGl8oeApnlI76eIiG9KpCF5cXX4vFjbblzEgSshmp9RxoynT99N4Lwe1deAh0h.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/33bGl8oeApnlI76eIiG9KpCF5cXX4vFjbblzEgSshmp9RxoynT99N4Lwe1deAh0h.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>The virtue signalling tweet by Wes Streeting @wesstreeting, dated May 6, 2017 "Last week I wrote to thousands of women in Ilford North to pledge my support for the WASPI campaign and today I've signed the #WASPIpledge" &nbsp; Shall we select Wes as the first subject for a private prosecution for Criminal Negligence for his role in allowing the Labour Government to continue the nightmare of lies, waste, deceit and incompetence?&nbsp;It must be criminally negligent of all Labour MPs to knowingly leave obviously inept and fantasist ministers in charge of crucial elements of the economy such as housing, energy, foreign policy and justice - when they have the ability to stop Britain being driven over a cliff with a vote of no confidence in Starmer's government. As such, each Labour MP may be guilty of criminal negligence for their acquiescence to this state of affairs. Huge fines at the very least for their ongoing part in the dishonesty?&nbsp; The various angles of culpable negligence are being explored in blog posts <a href="http://wote.uk" data-mce-href="http://wote.uk">http://wote.uk&nbsp;</a> So we asked Grok to prepare a notice of intended prosecution... To: Wes Streeting Member of Parliament for Ilford North House of Commons London, SW1A 0AA&nbsp; X: @wesstreetingDate:December 18, 2024<h3>Subject: Notice of Intended Prosecution for Criminal Negligence</h3>Dear Mr. Streeting,1. Notice of Intended ProsecutionYou are hereby notified that you are under investigation and may be prosecuted for the offence of criminal negligence, pursuant to&nbsp; "Common Law Duty of Care" 2. Alleged OffenceIt is alleged that you, Wes Streeting, as the Member of Parliament for Ilford North and Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, have:Failed in your duty by not participating in or supporting a vote of no confidence against the current UK Government, which was deemed necessary to force the government's resignation due to numerous fundamental governmental failures requiring a vote of no confidence to limit the damage being done to the UK economy and society.3. Details of the Alleged NegligenceDate of Alleged Negligence: Continuously from July 5th 2024 Details: Your avoidance, absence or abstention from a vote of no confidence, is considered a breach of your primary duty to represent the interests of your constituents and to act in the public interest. This inaction is construed as negligence given the severity of the situation and the potential impact on public welfare and trust in government.4. Legal Basis and ConsequencesUnder an oath of allegiance and duty of care to serve the interests of your constituents and the nation&nbsp; MPs have a responsibility to act in the best interest of their constituents and the nation. Your failure to engage in this critical parliamentary process is seen as a dereliction of duty, potentially leading to criminal negligence charges if it can be proven that your inaction contributed to significant harm or loss of public confidence.5. Right to RespondYou are entitled to respond to these allegations. You or your legal representative may submit any defence, evidence, or explanation in writing to:The Will Of The Electorate, a federation serving the obvious need to provide a roof over the heads of the many politically homeless who have been evicted from their former accommodation within the Conservative Party or Labour Party (and devolved regional variants thereof),Within 21 days of receipt of this notice.6. Next StepsAn investigation will proceed, and further steps, including possible formal charges, will depend on the findings of this investigation and any response you provide.7. Acknowledgement of ReceiptPlease acknowledge receipt of this notice within 7 days by sending an email to banged_to_rights@wote.uk &nbsp;8. NoteThis notice does not imply guilt but serves to inform you of the potential for&nbsp; prosecution of those with a responsibility to limit government harm so that you may cease your negligence now you have been advised. If this NIP has caused you to pause and ponder your role in the general malfeasance of the Labour Government, then you are advised to seek moral guidance and absolution.Sincerely,On behalf of the shocked and horrified people of the United Kingdom who are saddened and horrified at the scope and volume of broken promises, solemn undertakings, lies, deceit and hypocrisy that have typified the demeanour and performance of Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Government since taking office.&nbsp;Disclaimer: This preliminary document is a fictional creation for the purpose of prompting debate. In reality, the process to prosecute an MP for criminal negligence for not participating in a vote of no confidence will involve complex legal considerations, specific parliamentary procedures, and would be challenging given current legal standards and political norms in the UK.&nbsp;&nbsp;But it's worth a bloody hard try...

Wes Streeting - Man of Dishonour

Grok has taken the strain of this draft - I will polish in due course, but it's a good start. Negligence is a concept in law that refers to the failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person. However, the context in which negligence is considered—either civil or criminal—determines its implications:Civil Negligence: Definition: Civil negligence involves a breach of the duty of care that someone owes to another, leading to harm or loss. It's primarily about one individual or entity causing harm to another due to failure to act with the care that a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. Purpose: The aim in civil negligence cases is usually to compensate the victim for their losses or injuries. This is often through monetary damages. Burden of Proof: In civil cases, the standard of proof is "balance of probabilities" or "preponderance of evidence," meaning the plaintiff must show it's more likely than not that negligence occurred. Examples:&nbsp; A doctor failing to diagnose a condition, leading to further health deterioration. A business owner not maintaining safe premises, causing a customer to slip and fall. Outcome: The remedy is typically financial compensation for damages like medical expenses, lost wages, or pain and suffering.Criminal Negligence: Definition: Criminal negligence involves such a significant departure from the standard of care that it can be considered reckless or grossly negligent behaviour. Here, the negligence is so severe that it demonstrates a disregard for the safety of others, potentially warranting criminal sanctions. Purpose: The focus is on punishment for the negligent act, aiming to deter future misconduct, protect society, and sometimes rehabilitate the offender. Burden of Proof: The standard here is much higher, requiring proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the negligence was criminal in nature. Examples:&nbsp; A contractor ignoring safety regulations, directly leading to a fatal accident on a construction site. A parent neglecting their child to such an extent that it results in serious injury or death. Outcome: Penalties can include imprisonment, fines, or community service, in addition to any civil remedies if pursued separately.Key Differences: Nature of Action: Civil negligence is generally about compensating for harm, while criminal negligence is about punishing for egregious behavior. Standard of Proof: Civil cases require a lower burden of proof compared to criminal cases. Consequences: Civil negligence results in damages awarded, whereas criminal negligence might lead to criminal penalties. Intent and Severity: Criminal negligence often involves a higher degree of recklessness or disregard for safety, whereas civil negligence might simply be due to a lack of reasonable care.Legal Process: The process and procedures in court are different; criminal cases involve the state or government prosecuting, while civil cases are between private parties. Understanding these differences is crucial for anyone dealing with legal responsibilities or seeking justice after experiencing harm due to negligence. If you have any more specific questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/ndPZ2SnYpaN9jQ4hos4qfJC8G" href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/ndPZ2SnYpaN9jQ4hos4qfJC8G" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Grok </a>! &nbsp; Wote asserts that Labour MPs who have witnessed the massive public distrust represented by the petition vote, have been put on notice; and they need to respond. They should be paying close attention to the reasons why the electorate chose to make a such an unprecedented representation of dissatisfaction. And where it is obvious that the actions of the government are based on a speculative and largely unproven climate hypothesis - presented by unhinged zealots where 30 years of climate catastrophism and predictions have been proved wrong time and again. It is a large part of the reason that is causing the economy to go into recession - putting livelihoods and lives at risk.Which means MPs - one of the two classes of UK person with the power to call a halt to the government's reign of terror, the other being the monarch - must enforce their power and responsibility require the government to resign and be replaced with new elections - where the opportunity to redesign the UK's electoral system can be modernised and made fit for 21st century purpose and not disenfranchise 80% of the electorate as presently..&nbsp; &nbsp;

Negligence explored

The entire WEF house of cards that has been built on long term hoaxes, "the narrative", and psyops is coming apart. Sir Keir Starmer and his team are now so far out of their depth that the look of desperation is palpable. Rictus grins become ever more fixed to the faces of the rabbits in the headlights.&nbsp; Please send this notice to your Labour MP so they know what to expect and that we will hold them personally responsible for the ongoing negligence that they are failing to stop - although they are the one way (other than the King) we have to call a halt to a rogue government...<figure id="figure-53r4e2e5bvm4sttmz2" class=""><img id="53r4e2e5bvm4sttmz2" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/19AdzIeWKbD12Gx0sEMmbwcdckhThCfQVvK5eODbCZUuwGGpRCaLGWODeaZuwatb.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: undefined% 70%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="1:1" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined%" data-positiony="70%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/19AdzIeWKbD12Gx0sEMmbwcdckhThCfQVvK5eODbCZUuwGGpRCaLGWODeaZuwatb.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: undefined% 70%;"></figure>"Regarding Your Negligence in Not Pursuing Vote of No Confidence...Dear [MP's Name], I am writing to you as a concerned constituent from [Your Constituency] regarding the current governmental policies under the Labour administration, which I and many others believe are causing significant harm to our country and its citizens. Recent decisions, including [mention specific policies if possible, e.g., "the cessation of the winter fuel allowance"], have been acknowledged by your own party's research to potentially lead to the tragic loss of life among our pensioner population and squander vast sums of public funds through what many perceive as speculative and reckless climate change legislation. Given these dire consequences, I am compelled to express my deep concern over your apparent inaction in utilizing one of Parliament's most potent mechanisms for accountability: a vote of no confidence in the government. Your failure to initiate or support such a motion, despite the clear evidence of harm and public outcry, including a petition with over three million signatures demanding accountability, appears to me, and undoubtedly many others, as a form of negligence. Your role as an MP is not only to represent us but also to act in the best interest of the nation. By not challenging these harmful policies through all available parliamentary means, you are, in my view, neglecting your duty to safeguard the welfare and interests of your constituents and the broader UK populace. I urge you to consider your stance and actively pursue a vote of no confidence to halt these detrimental policies before they cause further irreversible damage. The lives and well-being of our fellow citizens, especially our vulnerable pensioners, hang in the balance. Please understand that this letter is not just my personal plea but reflects a broader sentiment among many who feel let down by the current political leadership and the lack of opposition to it. Your actions or lack thereof will be noted and considered in future electoral decisions and legal actions concerning criminal negligence. I look forward to your response on how you plan to address this matter. Sincerely, [Your Name][Your Address] [Your Contact Information] The first reaction by any politician used to the nonsense of UK elections to this proposition is "hoho - you''re 'avin a giraffe, mate - you can't do that..." Just watch... Now negligence is an interesting legal proposition that straddles civil and criminal law.&nbsp; This is being explored in another blog post with that assistance of Grok.

Do no evil, but do SOMETHING!

16Dec24 Verision 2.1 -&nbsp; (started 10DEC24&nbsp; Version 1.0 ) There is a lot of glum acceptance that we are lumbered with Labour until 2029 - but dumping this catastrophic administration long before 2029 is not as unlikely as finding a unicorn grazing on the lawn, as many imply. So we are not inevitably stuck with this fiasco unless we acquiesce, the government can go at short notice in a number of ways - so let's go into the situation room and wargame scenarios that can bring down governments or force them to compromise and seek coalition partnerships in times of national emergency. The idea the electorate can hustle this catastrophically illegitimate government out of office for lying, cheating and incompetence is not an impossible dream. It just requires some effort.Sending missiles to poke the Russian bear in the eye could get us into a war overnight. Putin can look at the petition result and be forgiven for wondering if he could drive through Dover in a tank and be welcomed as a liberator. He certainly has no fear of being overwhelmed by a well armed and trained civil defence force.We have taken our eye off the possibility of an attack from other unfriendlies - like Iran; N Korea and even China in the event of an invasion of Taiwan - when we have not got adequate means of defence. And who know what other terrorists might acquire a stray nuke?&nbsp; In the case of China it might not be a shooting war, but crippling trade warfare over the withdrawal of access to strategic goods such as semiconductors and solar panels. Granted the UK likes to think it is constrained by civilisation and the rule of law, but the numbers for the July 4th election are outrageous (and some labour MPs will secretly and sheepishly admit it) that there is a real moral hazard if we do not address the democratic deficit with an electoral system that does not disenfranchise 80% of voters. The government has been progressively disarming the population - firearms became almost unobtainable after Dunblane and Hungerford, and are now only rarely available after deep and detailed investigations into all applications and renewals - recently swords and knives have been taken off the population. But unless we are going to be told to prepare and eat with plastic and wooden bladed "cutlery" ...? And then there is the very real possibility that senior Labour politicians (including Lords) will be found to be involved in illegal activities and conspiracies to conceal awkward facts from their activist pasts and associates. Maybe even awkward revelations involving compromised senior civil servants; love children, super injunctions... there are many ways for an apparently immovable government to become so utterly bogged down in sleaze and corruption so the stench of hypocrisy and decay is so pervasive - that it becomes a pariah that cannot survive. Starmer already used up his allocation of complimentary "honeymoon period" hypocrisy by insisting "HIS GOVERNMENT" would contrast with the previous government and be paragon of probity and virtue - but immediately ran into the Lord Alli freebies, the <a data-mce-href="https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-angela-rayner-house-row-explained" href="https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-angela-rayner-house-row-explained" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rayner housing awks</a>; the <a data-mce-href="https://metro.co.uk/2024/11/29/transport-secretary-louise-haigh-resigns-admitting-phone-offence-22087315/" href="https://metro.co.uk/2024/11/29/transport-secretary-louise-haigh-resigns-admitting-phone-offence-22087315/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Louise Haigh resignation</a>, the <a data-mce-href="https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9gxxb" href="https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9gxxb" target="_blank" rel="noopener">disgraced </a><a data-mce-href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y4vz6900o" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y4vz6900o" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jacqui Smith Lords appointment,</a> and the Rachel from Accounts' <a data-mce-href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy12820kwwo" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy12820kwwo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CV fiasco.</a>So I asked Grok... How can the British labour MPs &nbsp;be made financially responsible &nbsp;for allowing mad Ed Milliband to wreck the country through his insane net zero policies And GROK says... "The question of holding British Labour MPs financially responsible for the outcomes of policies they support, particularly those related to net zero emissions under Ed Miliband's [leadership], involves complex legal, political, and ethical considerations. Here's an analysis based on the available information and context:Legal Accountability: Personal Liability: Generally, MPs are not held personally financially liable for the policy decisions they support or enact unless there's evidence of gross negligence, corruption, or illegal actions. The democratic process allows for policy implementation by elected representatives, with the assumption that these policies serve the public interest, even if they are controversial.&nbsp;Fiscal Responsibility: While the government can be held accountable by the electorate through elections for policy outcomes, the financial implications of those policies are managed through budgetary controls and are not typically directed at individual MPs. Policy failures might lead to political consequences, like losing an election or facing voter backlash, but not direct financial responsibility unless specific legal breaches occur.Political Accountability: Electoral Consequences: MPs are held accountable by voters in elections. If the public perceives Labour's net zero policies, championed by Ed Miliband, as detrimental, they can vote against Labour MPs in subsequent elections. This is the primary mechanism for political accountability in a democratic system.Public and Media Scrutiny: Media, public campaigns, and think tanks can increase scrutiny on MPs and their policies. For instance, articles from sources like The Times and The Telegraph have discussed the potential negative impacts of net zero policies on energy security and costs, which can influence public opinion and political pressure.Policy Critique and Debate: Policy Review: There's ongoing debate about the feasibility and economic impact of net zero policies. Critics argue that these policies could lead to higher energy costs or job losses in traditional industries, while proponents highlight long-term benefits like energy independence and environmental health. The discourse around these policies includes voices from both sides, with some expressing concerns over the rapid transition's economic implications, while others see it as necessary for future sustainability.Economic Impact: It's argued that the transition to net zero could strain the UK's economy if not managed carefully, with critics like Howard Cox from Reform UK suggesting that these policies might not align with the UK's global emission impact and could economically disadvantage the country.Conclusion: While there's no straightforward mechanism to make Labour MPs financially responsible for policy outcomes in the manner implied by the question, they are subject to:Political accountability through elections - Public scrutiny which can influence policy direction or lead to changes in government.]Legal accountability only if there are breaches of law, not merely based on policy outcomes.The debate around net zero policies is significant, involving economic, environmental, and social considerations, with no immediate legal avenue for direct financial accountability for MPs except in extreme circumstances. [Bankrupting the entire country in pursuite of an unproven hypothesis is extreme enought for me!] The effectiveness and impact of these policies will continue to be debated and judged by the electorate in future elections..."&nbsp;It's clearly not an open and shut case - the Palace of Westminster would have become the Prison of Westminster a while ago, to save the trouble of transporting the inmates to another location. So we have to work on the points raised, and I think there is an arguable&nbsp; and straightforward case for negligence in face of endless warnings, and also around the bribery act when votes with conned out of the electorate on promises of cheaper energy. Yes there will a lot of wailing OF "you cannot possibly do that" but&nbsp; aren't we ready to change the rules and expectations after the failure of 30 years of Blair and his heirs? Many good people have looked at politics and concluded that they could not bring themselves down to the level of deceit required to be a player in the game. Ben Habib and&nbsp; Tim Montogomery have both recently been proded by conscience to re-evaluate&nbsp; their positions in the Tory party. Labour defectors seeking to dissociate themselves from the distastrous consequences of govenment profligacy will take off when the first test case of an MP's potential for their 1/411th share of the many £billions being flagrantluy wasted by Miliband, gets to court.... &nbsp;🤔&nbsp;It was Keir Starmer that set the "nasty" intimidatory tone of this government with a vicious burst of lawfare to scare the people into submission to his police state and "bang-em-up" judges - now shall we concentrate minds and investigate and catalogue the assets of every Labour MP who will be liable for their share of the costs of the accumulating fraud in which they are prima facie complicit? Those who decide to do the decent thing and participate in a vote of no confidence in the government in order to respect the will of the people's petition may be granted leniency.&nbsp;A defenestration of the Starmer "illegitimocracy" is all the more likely if there is an obvious replacement government in waiting with a leader and credible policies. But there is not one at present, and Rupert Lowe needs to find some more Reform front people with the balls to look the government in the eye to tell it that it needs to prepare to be out of office by next summer. But the announcement that <a data-mce-href="https://news.sky.com/story/reform-uks-new-treasurer-nick-candy-reveals-he-spoke-to-elon-musk-this-morning-13270916" href="https://news.sky.com/story/reform-uks-new-treasurer-nick-candy-reveals-he-spoke-to-elon-musk-this-morning-13270916" target="_blank" rel="noopener">billionaire Nick Candy id on the Reform team</a> will further alarm Labour.Also remember that <a data-mce-href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyv2g2pe5ro" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyv2g2pe5ro" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dominic Cummings is still on the loose</a> with scores to settle and he always seems ready to implicate our rogue civil servants in all government failure and&nbsp; malfeasance; speaking of which I have not once alluded to what Trump and Musk might have up the MAGA sleeve... there is much to hope for if you want a fairly and democratically elected government within months, not years.But keep in mind when we do get close to disposing of Starmer and his illegitimocracy, the Tory party may well pretend it can't be done - since it is just as disturbed by the almost inevitable prospect of an at leat part-PR electoral system as will Labour and Lib dems - who will be huge losers in a fair voting solution.Are we put off by the prospect of the winning parties being forced to do deals to form governments? Well, nothing is ever going to be as bad as the abomination Starmer and his student common room politics has wrought, so let's try and be grown up and take into account all the new tech and information innovations that can change the relationship of electors and elected. Our present system was devised in the dark ages of carrier pigeons and <a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rotten boroughs</a>, and if we stick to the wote pledge principles, then what can possibly go wrong if electors are encouraged to be involved and empowered?&nbsp; &nbsp;

Putting Labour out of the UK's misery

15DEC24&nbsp; (Version 1.0 )Fantasy housing targets - we asked AI to second guess the next level of Angela Rayner's housing fantasy promises, and it came up with this rather fetching palace.&nbsp; In fact, it leads down <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/n5BCzSrHpcULv0sXGMScsTArE" href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/n5BCzSrHpcULv0sXGMScsTArE">a fascinating rabbit hole </a>that I will develop on another page when I have the time ...Just as Ed Miliband is lying about energy costs and net zero, so Angela Rayner has been lying her socks off about housing targets.&nbsp;Whilst the housing undershoot will not have the same immediately obvious disastrous consequences as energy shortages, it is nevertheless another example of the systemic criminal negligence of Labour MP's to allow the completely inexperienced Rayner to carry on lying to the people with impossible numbers and expectations.&nbsp; Correction, Rayner does indeed have experience in the housing market, let's recap - <a data-mce-href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/15/angela-rayner-given-flat-admirality-house-john-prescott/" href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/15/angela-rayner-given-flat-admirality-house-john-prescott/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">she is now here</a> in a grace and favour residence we are paying for...&nbsp; and has <a data-mce-href="https://www.itv.com/news/2024-04-13/rayners-former-aide-contradicts-her-housing-claims-in-police-statement" href="https://www.itv.com/news/2024-04-13/rayners-former-aide-contradicts-her-housing-claims-in-police-statement" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this backstory on file.</a> A problem is that as she gets increasingly cornered by her folly, she may try and change planning and development rules to permit incongruous, unfortunate and spiteful developments to rub the noses of the aspirational classes living in their hard-won rural and urban idylls in "housing diversity", with developments like a traveller sites or sewerage works, close by.So in keeping with Starmer's blunt use of lawfare to force the "far right" to submit to his police state, the silenced majority needs the clarity of an examination of this situation under oath in court to establish the truth, and not pretend it's just another case of "politicians being politicians". &nbsp;Starmer's regime gave up that option for politicians to be judged using a half jokingly weary "what are they like?" when it locked up <a data-mce-href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/11/allison-pearson-essex-police-investigation-harrington-chief/" href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/11/allison-pearson-essex-police-investigation-harrington-chief/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">grandfather Peter Lynch</a> for what had hitherto been dealt with by social media "house rules".&nbsp;The threats by police who advise they have teams of researchers investigating the online history of anyone they choose to target, have also changed the mood.The examples of citizens being doorstepped at 8am by zealous police (eg <a data-mce-href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/11/allison-pearson-essex-police-investigation-harrington-chief/" href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/11/allison-pearson-essex-police-investigation-harrington-chief/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Allison Pearson</a>) seem calculated to encourage unquestioning compliance through intimidation examples "to encourage the others".&nbsp;So let's make all members of Starmer's Orwellesque regime jointly and severally personally responsible, and required to share the costs of their unchecked liars and their failures. It's only financial sanctions and penalties that can force a change on the irresponsible culture of feckless politicians.Alternatively, maybe we could try to work hard to &nbsp;revert to the high trust and broadly tolerant "fair play" society that had been the hallmark of Britain's silent majority that existed before the politically autistic Starmer and his henchwoman, Mrs Balls, introduced two-tier justice to seal Britain's fate as an invaded - rather than an integrated - society.&nbsp;Who would prefer to invest in the effort to at least acknowledge the situation - and then revert to policing by consent and banter - rather than threat and riot gear?But that only starts with a complete regime change and rethink of spurious hate legislation.... and a move towards a simpler modern secular constitution that is not at the mercy of the bigotry of medieval mullahs, paedophilic priests, raving rabbis, barmy bishops and spurious sky fairies.Watch the blog at http://wote.uk as we try and evolve this proposition into a "party neutral" pledge tenet.

Angela Rayner prosecution..?

<h3>Why do most climate activists oppose nuclear power?&nbsp;</h3>I’ll tell you why. 🫵💰 It has nothing to do with the cost to deploy; it is actually pretty cheap without burdensome compliance regulations.☢️ It has nothing to do with radioactive waste; that is easily compactible into steel and concrete casks, and much of it is in fact reusable.Instead, their vitriol towards nuclear is an artifact of their Malthusian religion.&nbsp;They maintain that industrial processes are harming the planet and the only way to avert catastrophe is to decarbonize our economy rapidly and stop economic growth by abolishing capitalism. Many in fact admit that is their intention.&nbsp;Solar and wind are their preferred energy technologies. ☀️Why? 🤔Because they are intermittent electricity generation sources. The activists know that neither solar nor wind can serve as the baseload to power modern civilization. It’s simply not feasible with current technologies [which is why they require fossil fuel backup when there is no sunlight reaching the panels or wind blowing to turn the turbine blades]. This means that supply must be rationed.Nuclear, on the contrary, can. ✅France runs 70% of their grid on it. 🇫🇷Fission is symbolic of an economically prosperous future. 📈Solar and wind are symbolic of what the degrowthers want. 📉&nbsp; Some activist academics have gone so far as to say that the planet has too many people. But, they never take the liberty to decarbonize themselves and net zero their own existence. Oh, no.&nbsp;There is just the right amount of them, but too little of us. They don’t care about the planet; as George Carlin once said, they only care about having their own space to live. Their own little habitat. It’s narcissism guised as environmentalism.You and I are the carbon that they want to reduce.It’s that simple.https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1864800709218013642

WOTE.uk

Blog: the Revolution starts here...

Wes Streeting - Man of Dishonour

Negligence explored

Do no evil, but do SOMETHING!

Putting Labour out of the UK's misery

Angela Rayner prosecution..?

Nuclear makes sense