This is the 12th in a series of 13 articles challenging climate change orthodoxy commissioned by Professor Gwythian Prins. We will be publishing the articles at a rate of one a week (read the first article here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, the fifth here, the sixth here, the seventh here, the eighth here, the ninth here, the 10th here and the 11th here). The hope is that they can be collected into a book for Sixth Formers and university students.
UK Net Zero policy aims at balancing the production and removal of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide by 2050. The primary greenhouse gas from transport is CO2 produced by burning fuels containing carbon such as petrol and diesel in conventional internal combustion vehicles. The entire Vehicle Excise Duty regime pivots on this single metric. Current Government transport policy is aimed at reducing CO2 emissions to help meet Net Zero targets. In addition, Government documents also mention as objectives reducing local pollution from transport, improving connectivity across Britain, growing the economy by enhancing the transport network and increasing the global impact of the UK to boost influence and maximise trade. However, these other objectives are not clearly prioritised, the costs and challenges of implementation are not specified and flagrant contradictions between these different aims are simply ignored.
The scale of the challenge of ‘decarbonising’ transport is very large. Transport accounts for 26% of total UK emissions, which is 0.27% of total global emissions. As a rough guide from Government statistics, the major contributing sectors to transport emissions are road transport (70%), aviation (20%) and marine (8%). In Great Britain, there are around 42 million registered road vehicles – 34 million cars, five million vans and 0.8 million heavy goods vehicles and buses. Of these vehicles, as of March 2025 only 1.5 million were pure battery electric vehicles. Cars and vans account for about half while heavy goods vehicles and buses account for 15% of total transport CO2.
In 2024, 28 billion litres of diesel and 18 billion litres of petrol were used on British roads. Alternative fuels like biofuels cannot fully replace such large volumes and have significant performance and environmental downsides. Being forced by regulations to ‘cut’ pure fuel with bio-ethanol adversely affects fuel power density and also allows algal growth in storage tanks. It perishes seals and can block pipes and filters unless powerful biocides are routinely added to stored fuel, as farmers are now obliged to do to protect their tractors. Growing crops for fuel is also an opportunity-cost against growing food. In short, imposing ‘bio-fuels’ is a functionally pointless and potentially dangerous vicious circle. If air pollution is actually the concern, running ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) on LPG is a much superior solution: super-clean with zero tail-pipe particulate. But empirically there seems to be a sly conspiracy by the regulatory bureaucrats to kill the LPG fuelling network because it competes with EVs – though these are inferior in efficiency and create more environmental harms.
The most common alternative technology for transport is electrification using batteries. Fuel cell vehicles running on hydrogen are very far away from practical implementation at scale. There are different degrees of electrification. Only pure battery electric vehicles do not have a petrol or diesel (internal combustion) engine, and all the motive energy comes from the electricity grid and is stored in the battery. A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle has a small battery which allows a limited range on stored electricity in the battery but also an internal combustion engine which will power the vehicle if the battery charge runs out. ‘Self-charging’ hybrid electric vehicles like the Toyota Prius get all their energy from their petrol engine, while partial electrification with a small battery enables the fuel energy to be used more efficiently. They also recover energy regeneratively that is normally lost on braking. This technology can reduce fuel consumption and hence CO2 emissions by up to 25%, particularly in stop-start city driving.
Realistically only cars and vans can be run fully on batteries. It is not practical to have battery powered long-range heavy goods vehicles or buses because of the large battery size needed. Aviation and shipping also cannot be run only on batteries. For instance, for a mid-range jet like the Airbus A320, a lithium-ion battery with the same energy content as the fuel it carries would weigh 19 times the maximum take-off weight of the plane. So, most of transport will still be powered by internal combustion engines running on petroleum-based liquid fuels for decades to come. If in the future all cars and vans are forced to run on batteries, the battery capacity needed will have to increase by around 30 times compared to now. However, this would account for only about half of the U.K. emissions from transport or 0.14% of total global emissions. Massive disruption for risible gain.
The most visible central Government policy is the intention to ban the sale of new internal combustion engines from 2035. In addition, there are many anti-car local policies such as low emissions zones and low traffic neighbourhoods.
However, battery electric vehicles do not offer any significant benefit in terms of CO2 unless their use and manufacture are with energy that is CO2-free. If natural gas or coal is used to produce electricity, CO2 emissions from electricity production will be high. Even if wind, solar and nuclear provide a large share of the electricity, the extra electricity demand from electric vehicles has to be met with marginal (backup) electricity generation which is always available and can quickly respond to changing demand. In the UK it will be from natural gas and produce more CO2 emissions than the average for the renewable electricity grid.
Battery manufacture needs much more process energy and produces more emissions compared to the manufacture of internal combustion engines. A recent estimate for battery manufacture from China, where over 70% of the batteries are made, is an additional 125 kg CO2 per kWh of battery capacity. So, a Nissan Leaf, with a 40 kWh battery will start with a deficit of five tonnes of CO2 and would need to drive many thousands of miles on CO2-free electricity before it can have any benefit over an equivalent conventional vehicle in terms of CO2. In the UK, a small pure electric vehicle might be better than an equivalent conventional car for CO2 by about 30% over its lifetime but its emissions will not be zero. Bigger vehicles with bigger batteries will show much less lifetime benefit, if any. Furthermore, given that battery EV service life is much shorter than that of a well-made ICE vehicle (eight years as against 20 or more) the life-time EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) favours the well-maintained long-lived ICE vehicle, especially running on LPG.
On top of this, the impacts on human health, on water and high eco-toxicity associated with mining of metals needed for batteries are very significant. The net health impacts for EVs are estimated to be three to five times worse than for conventional ICE vehicles. These health and environmental impacts of battery electric vehicles are currently exported to where the mining takes place and materials are processed (e.g. the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile, China) where environmental controls are lax and child and slave labour are also of concern. The bigger the battery, the worse the impact. Mining also requires moving large quantities of earth and rock – on average 500 times the weight of the battery. Thus a 40 kWh battery, which weighs around 300 kg could require roughly 150 tons of rock and earth moved. The footprint of oil production to power ICE vehicles is very much lower.
Local air quality is impacted by emissions of particulates, nitrogen oxides, unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from petrol and diesel exhausts. These emission levels are zero for pure battery EV and near zero and for the most modern conventional vehicles with particulate filters, especially running on LPG, the most eco-friendly fuel which the eco-lobby seems to seek to drive out of the market. Other sources such as tyre-wear then become much more important for particulate levels; and these will be greater for pure battery electric vehicles because they weigh 25-30% more than comparable conventional vehicles because of the weight of the battery.
These environmental issues, which are currently ignored, will inevitably come to the fore as the number of battery electric cars increases. The true impact of competing technologies should be assessed on a life-cycle basis, honestly accounting for manufacturing, in-use and end of life emissions. The environmental benefits of battery electric vehicles will depend on the battery size, on how it is made and how the electricity to fill it is generated and will not be zero.
The infrastructure and material requirements for battery EVs are very large. Convenient public charging points need to be built for around 10 million cars which must park on the street. Suppose, by 2030, of all the electric vehicles, there will be a million cars which want to charge at the time of peak electricity demand – in the evening after people return from work. If allowed at the 7kW Level 1 charging rate, this will require an additional seven gigawatts (GW) of electric power which needs to be CO2-free. This is equivalent to over two new nuclear power plants of 3 GW – impossible to build over such a short period. Battery charging is inconvenient – it can take many hours depending on the rate of charging, compared to a few minutes required to fuel a conventional car.
It will become steadily more difficult to source critical materials like lithium salts, copper and cobalt needed for battery manufacture if the demand is going to increase to the level required to run all cars and vans only on batteries. China has set out to corner many of these markets. This materials crunch will be worse if there is also increasing demand for grid-scale storage batteries to cover the intermittency of wind and solar. The scope for recycling old batteries to recover critical materials is very limited given the resins, complexity and weight of the batteries.
Then there is increasing evidence of spontaneous anaerobic fires in batteries which are extremely difficult to extinguish. As the number of electric vehicles grows and charging rates increase, this problem will also become more prominent. All the issues discussed above will be more difficult to ignore as the demand for batteries increases.
The current cost of an electric vehicle is significantly higher and there is increasing evidence that the depreciation rate is also higher compared to an equivalent conventional car. As battery materials increase in price in response to increasing demand, battery prices are unlikely to come down as fast as they have done in the past. As the number of electric vehicles increases, government subsidies and tax and other benefits to promote them will become unaffordable. Fuel taxes contribute around £40 billion to the exchequer. At least a part of this will have to be recovered by taxing electric cars. Some calculations show that the total cost of ownership is lower for electric cars. Such calculations assume that the cost of electricity, in relation to fuel costs for conventional vehicles remains low. In any case, individual buyers are likely to base their buying decision on up-front costs and the utility and convenience such as the availability of charging infrastructure and time needed to charge. All evidence is that in an open market battery EVs are turkeys – so fanatics like Ed Miliband respond by rigging the markets, as I have explained.
Western, particularly European strengths are in advanced high-tech ICE cars. Great Britain has a strong research and development reputation in the automotive sector. China recognised this and focused on ‘new energy vehicles’ and has now mostly cornered the supply chain needed for electric vehicles and builds them on a coal-fired grid. Western auto manufacturers will also not be able to compete with China on costs of electric vehicles. If transport in Britain were to focus only on battery EVs as current policies seek to coerce, the automotive industry will be killed under any kind of free trade. Furthermore, if consumers do not buy new electric cars because of up-front cost, faster depreciation, charging anxiety and inconvenience but still the sale of new internal combustion engines is banned, the British auto industry will be destroyed even without Chinese intervention. As professor Kelly also asks, on what planet does that make sense?
‘Green’ policies require enormous investments in infrastructure and even if all British cars and vans are replaced by pure battery EV – a 30-fold increase compared to now – and ignoring lifetime emissions, this would reduce global emissions by less than 0.14%. There are various points of conflict with other Government objectives. Private transport will become unaffordable except for the rich – and for the nomenklatura. Other anti-car policies will reduce connectivity and impact economic growth. Leadership in the automotive sector will be ceded to China. British trade and influence will wane.
All technologies relevant to transport including manufacture and different fuels need to be honestly assessed over their full life EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) cycle, sensibly deployed and continuously improved. However, in a rigged market, research and development into further improving internal combustion engines will stop even though most transport will still be relying on that technology for decades to come. The British auto industry will be sacrificed on the altar of the green cult but will yield negligible reduction in global emissions; and in conflict with our authoritarian enemies, in the land of Net Zero, the man in the diesel tank is king. No wonder Mercedes and VW are defying the EV target mandate and Land Rover is following suit. Don’t Ministers know that setting production targets in the former USSR didn’t end well? Maybe they don’t. Worse. Maybe they do.
Professor Gautam Kalghatgi is a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has been a visiting professor at Oxford University and Imperial College London and is Chairman of the Academic Advisory Board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
On some accounts, the removal of Ed Miliband from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to the Foreign Office allows the new Prime Minister to put a noisy and disruptive potential competitor, with his own agenda, out of his way by sending him overseas. There is much to this argument, and there have been some sighs of relief as the crazy zealot was replaced by a relative nobody, who will likely struggle to marshal such support in Cabinet and in the party. However, though you can take the climate brief away from the minister, you can’t take green ideology from his outlook. This week, Miliband has vowed to “take personal leadership of the UK’s work on development and climate” using the UK’s position at the World Bank to “ensure the UK plays a leading role” in sustaining both climate and development at the centre of foreign policy. But what if the world has other ideas?
Much is made about Miliband’s position of “UK governor” at the World Bank in a Guardian article following an announcement by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO). “Miliband will play an active role in shaping the changes to the World Bank that developing countries have called for, and ensuring the climate remains a core focus for overseas aid”, explains Fiona Harvey. The problem, however, is that there are 189 such positions at the Bank – one for each member country of the intergovernmental agency. Miliband’s role is unexceptional, other than for the fact of the billions of pounds that he would like to make available to other members, to grease the green agenda’s passage through global political institutions.
But that’s not really news. Despite later complaints from green blobbers claiming that the Government had effectively nearly halved its commitments to International Climate Finance (ICF) to £2 billion a year, and despite the Government having to reduce its aid and development spending from 0.7% to 0.3% of GNI, “climate finance” remains a vast slush fund for a global political agenda, with no obvious ‘aid’ or ‘development’ deliverables visible from outside the green perspective. The only noteworthy thing about the story is that the role of UK governor to the World Bank typically falls to a junior minister, not to the Secretary of State. Miliband, who believes that abolishing cheap and plentiful energy is the key to dismantling the forces of inequality and to building in their place the institutions of global social democracy, has demoted himself in order to better push climate through global political architecture.
Yet perhaps the Guardian hack might be forgiven for having been misled by the FCDO’s excessive hyperbole, it claiming that:
UK leadership at the World Bank will help drive international action on poverty, climate change and economic stability, and tackle global issues, like food insecurity and energy price shocks, helping make food and energy more affordable for people in the UK.
It’s a breathless list of benefits that typically accompany vast and largely unaudited, unscrutinised, unsupervised multi-billion-pound torrents of cash that get sprayed at the world’s problems. Previously here at the Daily Sceptic I explained “how the Blob works”, noting that Ed Miliband’s brother, David, also ended up as Foreign Secretary. From the working relationships he developed in role, he was able in a subsequent position to make credible requests for grants from the UK aid budget, in turn justifying his million-pound-plus annual salary. If the FCDO claim were so, then the utopia that would be unleashed would justify returning the UK development budget to 0.7% of GNI, as Andy Burnham is understood to be considering – perhaps as a condition of Ed Miliband accepting the brief, perhaps with Ed also having his eyes on a £1 million-a-year job plus benefits. Climate change may or may not be a ‘hoax’, but two things are for sure: climate change alarmism is a con, and ‘development’ is a scam.
The FCDO continues:
The World Bank is the UK’s most important multilateral development partner, providing around $100 billion in finance per year. It serves as the largest provider of finance to tackle the climate and nature crisis and adapt to the impacts for the world’s poorest countries.
But to what end is this money put? What good does it do, to achieve its now-retired slogan of “making poverty history”? It was in 2017 that the World Bank announced, according to the Guardian, its plans to “end its financial support for oil and gas extraction”, in addition to having “ceased lending for coal-fired power stations in 2010”. In the past, cheap and abundant energy was understood as a keystone of development, improving health and economic outcomes, and making technological and economic progress possible. But in more recent years, that conventional view of economic development has given way to green ideology. Coincidentally, however, 2017 was one of the last years that saw a post-Cold War reduction of the number of people living in extreme poverty.
My claim is nothing as simple as the stalling of this progress being entirely due to the World Bank. But I would place the blame on that regressive green ideology which the World Bank has adopted. Manifestly, intergovernmental agencies – the World Bank included – are now so bent on green ideology that they are unable to fulfil their founding purpose, and today nearly a billion people live in need. We can further hypothesise that one of the reasons for the collapse in the progress of poverty statistics might be the rise in energy prices, driven by the artificial production of scarcity mandated by green policy all over the world. That is to say that economic, technological and social progress has stalled, not because of climate change, but because of global institutions’ and national governments’ embrace of green ideology – and their determination to inflict that ideology on others.
Even private finance, which developers in cash-starved aspiring economies might wish to use to develop natural resources and energy infrastructure, was blocked by financial institutions’ green colonisation in the form of ESG. If financial services companies of any kind – from insurance companies to lenders – wished to sustain their high ESG scores and maintain good relationships with investors, they were required to withdraw their services from companies involved in hydrocarbon production.
But imagine it for yourself. Put yourself in the position of an able farmer, in otherwise good financial standing, in need of irrigation – or perhaps as someone with a plan for a factory. On the green ideological view, you would be better served by expensive, variable and weather-dependent energy. But the markets and clients you hope to serve require security of supply, not fantasies about “predictable weather”. It is far easier to protest such nonsense in Europe – for the moment at least – than it is to challenge it where it is most needed.
All of this is to say that it is long past the point at which we could describe the British Government, the World Bank and the ‘development’ sector as forces for good in the world. If there is a connection between the rise of environmentalism and the stalling of progress on poverty statistics since the end of the Cold War, then we can say categorically that they are forces for bad. Miliband – who is likely to strain Britain’s relations with the US – seems set to use his position to make a song and dance about climate change just as the rest of the world wakes up to the nonsense, and is accordingly likely to set Britain up as a toxic pariah on the global stage.
A university lecturer who was sacked for calling women in his class “females” and branding one student a “troublesome trans kid” has lost his bid to overturn his dismissal. The Mailhas the story:
Film-maker Russell Cherrington was working as a senior film studies lecturer at the University of Derby in 2023 when four students complained about his “misogynistic”, “transphobic” and “divisive” language during some classes.
He has now failed at his bid at an employment tribunal to argue that he was unfairly dismissed. …
The employment tribunal heard the lecturer told one student: “If you had worn that nail polish back in the day, you would have been called a p**f.”
Students said Mr Cherrington almost exclusively referred to women in the class as “females” and used “misogynistic” language, describing the main actress in a music video as “not attractive enough for the role”.
They said he had also used “transphobic” language when referring to a student who was transitioning as a “troublesome trans kid”.
He was also accused of ableist language, including an instance when he claimed universities “were becoming a care home for people with disabilities”.
The lecturer, who had a “previously unblemished disciplinary record”, was subsequently dismissed by the university for gross misconduct in April 2024 over his “inappropriate and unprofessional language”.
He took his fight against being sacked to an employment tribunal, but failed and in May this year challenged that decision before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), arguing that his human right to “academic freedom of expression” had been violated.
He also claimed his UK employment rights concerning freedom of speech in the academic context were not upheld.
But EAT judge Mr Justice Cavanagh ruled against him, finding that there was nothing wrong with the lower tribunal’s decision to dismiss his claim.
Mr Justice Cavanagh
The judge said the professor heading the university disciplinary panel found that “despite having received relevant training, Mr Cherrington had engaged in behaviour towards the students that was discriminatory, and created an unsafe learning environment and there could be no confidence that the behaviour would not be repeated”.
He had recommended he be dismissed due to his “lack of insight into his actions”, he said, adding: “He concluded that he had no confidence that the appellant could return to his role without the risk of further incidents occurring.”
At the initial hearing, Mr Cherrington had provided “a list of eight students who he said could speak to his teaching and how he treated students” in opposition to the four who had complained.
However these students were not contacted by the university, the judge said, because the professor heading the panel “did not consider that he should weigh what might have been positive accounts of the appellant against the allegations of inappropriate and unprofessional language”.
Thanks to becoming an accidental landlord of a property that only just washes its face, I have been pulled into the deathly realms of Making Tax Digital. Hopefully others entrapped by MTD are not as useless as me, but after the ordeal, I can only conclude that MTD is the latest wheeze in the ongoing NDC (National Demoralisation Campaign).
The dread letter arrived from HMRC demanding I register for MTD and access the relevant software. I like to think I’m a vaguely competent person but the combination of HMRC and ‘new software’ set me out in a black sweat. For the past 10 years, like many sole traders, I’ve managed to do my self-assessment tax return in a day; but the noise around MTD is so ominous that I dedicated a week in July to sort it all out. Though HMRC have generously said they won’t fine anyone in the first year, the deadline for first submission is August 7th. I am a law-abiding person, hate that feeling of being in the wrong and want to avoid angry letters. Like a biddable lemming, I am keen to do the right thing. Oh, but it was horrible.
Day One:
Register for MTD with HMRC, relatively straightforward.
Ask Claude, Grok and ChatGPT, friends and colleagues what is the best and easiest MTD software. On their recommendations sign up to QuickBooks (also known as Intuit) for an introductory offer of £10.80 a year.
Spend an afternoon navigating the site. I am disappointed to discover there is no section similar to HMRC’s Self-Assessment software in which to input income and expenses.
Link QuickBooks to HMRC; straightforward.
Day Two:
Feel optimistic for my onboarding call with QuickBooks – 30 mins to explain how to use the software.
Attempt to explain to the lady from an overseas call centre that I have three small income streams (freelance writing, school work and a rental property) – I would like to input my income and expenses for MTD. She encourages me to link my Barclays bank account to QuickBooks and I do. The results terrify me. My bank account is now live on our shared screen: Aldi, Sports Direct, Lidl, Amazon, Scopay, Scopay: -£132. She explained I needed to go through every transaction and allocate it a name, QuickBooks would then automatically put everything into the relevant MTD stream. Given the fact that my freelance writing income for the quarter comprises two payments, and the school income is scanter, it seemed an entirely unnecessary operation to unpick the meagre income from the vast domestic expenses.
I quickly delinked my bank account and asked for another method. She told me to get a business bank account.
She did agree there was another way, so we attempted to upload a receipt from a freelance writing payment made in June. We did that, and she said that I had successfully inputted an expenses receipt. I said, “No, it’s income.” She said it had been inputted as an expense. The 30-minute call ended, and I found myself crying.
Day Three:
Use QuickBooks AI assistant which explains that for three different income streams, I need three different QuickBooks accounts. Have another small cry.
Delete QuickBooks and unlink the software from HMRC.
Call Barclays to enquire about a business account. It would be free for the first year then £8.50 a month thereafter.
Ask AI better questions and sign up to Xero (£1.40 per month plus VAT for the first six months, then £7 a month) which allows three income streams from one Xero account.
Find out if this subscription can be expensed. It can.
Link Xero to HMRC.
Spend the rest of the day navigating Xero and finding it impenetrable. Both QuickBooks and Xero have all sorts of snazzy tools that I simply don’t need.
Day Four
Visit a local accountant in person. She kindly says that we can use this introductory session to help me navigate Xero. After an hour she is unable to work out what to do. On the verge of tears, I ask if I can just get her firm to do my MTD and tax return for me as I’m finding the software impossible. She says they use IRIS but would charge me £90 for each quarterly MTD return plus £350 for the full tax return in January. That would be £710 a year. She said given what I earn, this is not worth it. She says she will get one of her colleagues who is good at Xero to help me. She says the whole thing is unnecessary and clearly only happening because the Government wants people to start paying tax quarterly. Go home and have another small cry.
Day Five
Make a double coffee, put on some Palestrina and sit at the kitchen table determined to navigate Xero myself. Fail.
Furiously ask AI who was the founding genius of MTD: George Osborne.
Receive an email from Xero asking me if I need an onboarding Zoom call. There is one slot left for the whole of July and August: 7.45am the following morning. I book it.
Day Six
Take my son to Gatwick Airport in the early hours. Sit in a motorway McDonald’s at 7.45am and connect with Habib from Xero. I tell him what I need to do and he sets up a ‘dummy bank account’ on Xero. He shows me how to input six lots of figures (income and expenses for each income stream), configure it to MTD and send the whole thing off. It was easy but entirely hidden from the ordinary person / AI assistant unfamiliar with obscure corners of accounting software.
Day Seven and Onwards
Cancel second meeting with accountant.
Tell Barclays I don’t need a business account.
Fill in feedback form to say that Habib was excellent.
Have a slight panic that I’ve inputted the correct figures. Double check my workings. Feel ok again.
Feel sad that I’m trying to do the right thing and this shouldn’t be so difficult.
Puzzle over how those high street cash businesses navigate HMRC.
Look at the news, and feel tearful about the garbage governments of all colours spend my meagre taxes on.
Wonder how it’s possible for the Government to have spent £1.4 billion on MTD.
Flag November 7th on the calendar to do the next quarter MTD return.
Ponder if I would rather work and earn less to avoid this nonsense.
Remember the income threshold is being lowered in 2028 to £20,000 so will be difficult for most people to escape.
Dr Anthony Fauci refused to answer more than 100 questions about the origins of Covid during a fiery Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing in Washington, accusing Republicans of having an “unhinged obsession” with him. The Mailhas the story:
The former Chief Medical Advisor invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination in the opening round. He then continued to do so over 100 separate times when interrogated by lawmakers on the committee.
“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” Fauci told Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul numerous times in the opening round of questions.
During his opening statement, Fauci earlier accused Paul of having an “unhinged obsession” with him.
“Given Senator Paul’s obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me and recently his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me,” Fauci noted.
“The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something, anything that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up in his words ‘behind bars’,” Fauci continued. …
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul
Fauci’s attorney David Schertler was physically removed by security in an explosive moment when he attempted to speak on behalf on Fauci.
“I didn’t invite you here to testify,” exclaimed Paul before setting the guards on him to drag him out. …
Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, blasted Fauci for using federal employees to enrich himself during the pandemic by applying for a variety of awards to recognise his work.
Missouri Senator Josh Hawley
“You turned your staff into a full-time application machine. You actually wrote to people and said, ‘Do you think maybe I qualify?’ And you got cash for all of this. And it wasn’t just one or two employees, was it? In fact, you used eight separate federal employees on federal time using federal resources to solicit cash for that,” Hawley probed. Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment again while being questioned by Hawley.
Stop Press: Watch this video in which Fauci says he’s very happy to testify in front of any Congressinal committee. As Julian Assange says, it didn’t age well.
For the past five years, 55 year-old Alison Butler has effectively been in lockdown. Following her second Covid jab, Alison’s health has significantly deteriorated and she can no longer go out by herself. Formerly a fit and active full-time worker in a local school, she was medically retired in 2023, having been unable to work since June 2021. Wheelchair-bound when outdoors, with a husband whose health has also recently declined, Alison now has to wait until one of her sons is available to assist before making plans to venture outside the confines of her home in Caerphilly, South East Wales.
Alison had taken the jabs out of a sense of duty and a degree of pressure in her role working with children. Over a year later, owing to her tenacity and after facing many obstacles, she obtained a diagnosis of post Covid vaccine sequelae (meaning after effects) and a written admission from Public Health Wales that there was “no pathway in Wales for vaccine injury diagnosis”.
Towards the end of 2024, Alison’s petition to the Senedd asking for a pathway of diagnosis and treatment for people “suffering from adverse COVID-19 vaccine side effects” garnered 10,898 electronic signatures and 414 on paper. This was, in theory, enough to trigger a debate; however, the petition was kicked down the road in anticipation of Module 4 of the UK Covid Inquiry. In actual fact, Alison’s was the third largest petition in the history of the Senedd.
The Welsh Government state in response to the petition: …if anyone is experiencing symptoms similar to those experienced by people with Long Covid, regardless of what may have caused them, I would encourage them to use the integrated community rehabilitation services established in all health boards via the Adferiad (Recovery) programme. They also highlight that those who have suffered from an adverse reaction may be eligible for a vaccine damage payment from a compensation scheme operated by the UK Government.
Jeremy Miles, then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, in his correspondence, mentioned: “I understand researchers are working to understand if there is any potential connection between the COVID-19 vaccination and what is being referred to as Long Vax.”
Apparently ‘Long Vax’ has been baffling doctors who are hesitant to mention it in case it is seized upon by so-called ‘anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists’. This is the sort of agenda-driven, non-evidence-based narrative that Module 4 of the UK Covid Inquiry has been accused of by Oxford academics Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson. Similarly, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance has worked tirelessly to produce its ‘deep-dive’ into Module 4, presented by Dr Liz Evans, its founder and CEO. Such narratives can only serve to deter people from questioning the safety and efficacy of mRNA injections.
Dr Evans, describing Module 4 as a “smug, self-congratulatory propaganda exercise”, outlined how her group was denied core-participant status. They were invited to submit written evidence; however, the 50 pages of evidence submitted by the UKMFA was subsequently ignored. Dr Evans describes how vaccine-injured spokespersons were “drowned out by a biased, ideologically driven team of lawyers who allowed unevidenced claims by expert witnesses to go unchallenged and who, on several occasions, became aggressive towards the vaccine injury spokespersons with hostile questions and interruptions”.
Similarly, Alison still feels anger about the way her petition was treated. She has since submitted a detailed FOI request to Cardiff and Vale University Health Board enquiring about training and guidance for healthcare professionals in Wales in respect of diagnosing and treating adverse reactions to the Covid injections. Senedd Research maintained that:
In Wales, efforts have been made to enhance GPs’ awareness of vaccine side effects. Public Health Wales provides guidance documents and e-learning modules for healthcare professionals to keep them informed about vaccine safety, potential side effects and how to communicate with patients. When it comes to diagnosing and treating adverse reactions to the vaccine, this is based on clinical evaluations.
The above statement did not align with the reality of the situation, exposed by Alison’s request, which revealed that the All Wales Therapeutics and Toxicology Centre (via Yellow Card Centre Wales) did not provide e-learning modules, structured training packages or formal written guidance specifically aimed at recognising, diagnosing or managing COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions. Instead, they created an ‘information hub’ whose purpose was mainly signposting to other organisations’ resources (mostly the MHRA). Although anecdotal, one GP admitted off the record to Alison in 2022: “We knew, but we couldn’t diagnose.”
The Senedd research response linked to a page from Public Health Wales entitled Immunisation Training Resources and Events. It begins by outlining their approach to “maintaining high vaccine uptake” and mentions that their approach is “also recommended by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) working group on vaccine hesitancy”. Interestingly, this page contains no explicit references to either the Yellow Card scheme or adverse event training. It begs the question whether the repeated sponsorship in Wales of the annual National Immunisation Conference by pharmaceutical companies, albeit for hospitality and production, has any bearing on the content of these training schedules.
During the three-minute discussion given to Alison’s petition, Rhys ab Owen – an independent Senedd member – mentioned that not only did the committee feel that this topic would be best covered by Module 4 of the inquiry, it would also be looked at by the Senedd Oversight Committee (Wales COVID-19 Inquiry Special Purposes Committee). The remit of this committee was to examine each module of the Covid Inquiry and to identify any Wales-specific gaps requiring further scrutiny. However, the committee ceased to exist prior to Module 4 in October 2025.
In the meantime, Alison puts what little energy she has into trying to make life better for herself. The support she has received from Care and Repair, a local Wales-wide charitable movement, has been invaluable in helping her adapt her home to her needs. Much of the work needed has only been made possible due to a modest and unexpected inheritance, which ordinarily might have been used for Alison and her husband to take a well-deserved holiday or other luxury. She is hoping that soon her garden might be made wheelchair-accessible so that she will at least be able to go outside and even onto the pavement independently.
Alison was discharged by her consultant in 2025 as her symptoms were considered ‘stable’ – though she confided: “I don’t want to be stable, I want to be better, but with no dedicated pathway for tests and treatments what hope do I have?”
Nicola is a former teacher, with a diploma in journalism. Follow her on X here. Her Substack page, the Welsh Economic Forum can be read here.
The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) could push for a legal exemption so women can move to the front of the membership queue. The Telegraphhas the story:
The 239 year-old club is consulting members on a variety of schemes to increase its female membership, which stands at only 3.2%. Women were first allowed to join the MCC in 1998, but it can take 30 years to gain full membership.
Other proposals include allocating new memberships on a 50:50 gender split, even though women make up only 12% of membership candidates, and allowing members to nominate more candidates if they include women on their lists.
However, the club’s lawyers are concerned that the diversity drive would qualify as positive action, which would count as illegal discrimination against men.
A consultation sent to members, which closes on Friday, said the MCC could seek an exemption to the law to allow it to breach the Equality Act 2010 in pursuit of more female members.
The document, seen by the Telegraph, warned that “any efforts by MCC to address gender diversity within the membership that involve giving preferential treatment to female candidates over male candidates are likely to fall within the scope of positive action”. …
The MCC consultation states that the club could “consider other strategies to overcome legal barriers, such as pursuing a private bill” if other legal avenues have been “exhausted”.
A law change would make it legal for the club to discriminate against men by putting them at a disadvantage on the waiting list.
“Burnham to host cross-party social care talks – but Farage is snubbed” – Andy Burnham has vowed to expend “whatever political capital I have” on fixing the social care system, but Nigel Farage has been excluded from cross-party talks and Kemi Badenoch and Ed Davey have declined to participate, claiming they were given too little notice, writes Greg Heffer in the Mail.
“Workers face new tax to fund social care” – Health officials are drawing up plans for a 1.8% levy on earnings to fund Andy Burnham’s social care reforms, says the Telegraph.
“Andy Burnham says assisted suicide ‘debate’ should be delayed” – Andy Burnham has told Sky News that the assisted suicide debate should be put off, effectively kicking the assisted dying bill into the long grass, reports Max Young in Guido Fawkes.
“Burnham fails to commit to 3% defence spending target” – Andy Burnham’s refusal to back a 3% defence spending target puts him at odds with Defence Secretary John Healey, who warns the level is needed to keep Britain safe from Russian threats, reports the Telegraph.
“Erase the benefits mindset, Burnham” – With over a million young people now classed as Neets and Labour’s own measures blamed for making it harder for them to find work, the pressure on Burnham to act is mounting, says a leading article in the Mail.
“Labour’s education policy is ‘bring back stupid’” – Years of improved attainment for working-class pupils risk being undermined by Labour’s dilution of academic excellence, writes Michael Gove in the Times.
“The soft bigotry of low expectations dressed up as reform” – Youth unemployment at its highest level in over a decade, with more than a million 16-to-24-year-olds in the Neet category. Progressive-sounding educational reform will only make things worse, argues Laura Trott in the Mail.
“The women helping Burnham to win the battle with Reform” – Social media influencers embracing a “Harold Wilson summer” are proving a surprisingly potent weapon in Burnham’s TikTok war against Reform, notes Dan Hodges in the Mail.
“Teenage Norwegian hitman plotted to murder target in UK” – Johannes Natland, 18 at the time, flew from Stavanger to Britain to assassinate a target in return for £21,000 on behalf of an Iran-backed gang, the Old Bailey was told, according to the Mail.
“Russia issues international arrest warrant for Telegram founder” – Russian authorities have issued an international arrest warrant for Telegram founder Pavel Durov on charges of complicity in terrorism, even as they move to restrict the app domestically, says the Mail.
“Britain races to build bomb factories as stockpiles dwindle” – The Government has commissioned 22 companies to rapidly draw up plans for new munitions facilities as Britain’s weapons stockpiles run dangerously low, reports the Telegraph.
“Should Burnham get an EV to cut No. 10 north to London commute cost?” – Andy Burnham, who champions public transport, faces a significant travel bill for commuting between No. 10 and his Northern base – raising questions about whether an electric vehicle might be a cost-effective solution, says the Mail.
“Wildfire alert as UK on brink of breaking 50-year drought record” – The Met Office has warned that fires could become “severe” across much of England and parts of Wales as temperatures climb towards 35C and Britain edges towards its worst drought in half a century, says the Times.
“Cost of Net Zero will hit £40 billion by the end of the decade” – The total spent on eco policies has risen six times since 2010 and is driving up household bills, with Net Zero costs set to reach £40 billion by the end of the decade, according to a new report for the Prosperity Institute by the Daily Sceptic’s David Turver, reports the Mail.
“Britain can’t stop climate change – scrap Net Zero” – Despite slashing its own emissions by 44% between 2000 and 2023, Britain has made no discernible dent in global warming, according to Allister Heath in the Telegraph.
“Our reckless lack of gas storage invites disaster” – Britain’s decision to keep just two or three days’ worth of gas in reserve is a catastrophic failure of energy policy that leaves the country dangerously exposed, writes Juliet Samuel in the Times.
“Data centre projects face crackdown to free up power grid” – The energy regulator has launched a crackdown on data centres in a bid to cut the growing backlog of projects waiting to connect to the electricity grid, says the Telegraph.
“MoD spends £600k on protecting rare wildlife” – Taxpayer money has been used to fund schemes researching bees, birds and dolphins under a directive from the previous Welsh Labour government, reports the Telegraph.
“Biden bucks: climate change funds a bonanza for state outfits” – In RealClearInvestigations, James Varney reveals how Biden-era climate funding transformed small state energy offices into sprawling bureaucracies, with Colorado’s energy office among those gorging on the bonanza.
“Cambridge’s diversity poster boy faces questions over running claims” – Prof Jason Arday, a Cambridge professor celebrated as a diversity icon, is facing scrutiny over claims he ran 600 miles in six days and 30 marathons in 35 days – partly with a broken leg – raising serious doubts about his extraordinary assertions, writes Gordon Rayner in the Telegraph.
“Academia has a much bigger problem than plagiarism” – Jason Arday’s alleged misconduct is deplorable, but he is merely a symptom of a far wider malaise in higher education, writes Lara Brown in the Telegraph.
“Cringe-inducing moment Canadian politician gets AI to write his speech” – Progressive Conservative member Bill Oliver read out an AI-generated speech to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, complete with prompts and formatting notes still visible in the text, reports Perkin Amalaraj in the Mail.
“Argentina charged by Fifa over ‘The Falklands are Argentine’ banner” – Fifa has charged Argentina after their players unfurled a banner declaring the Falkland Islands to be Argentine territory following their World Cup semi-final victory over England, reveals the Telegraph.
“UEFA ‘threaten to boycott the World Cup’” – UEFA is reportedly considering boycotting the World Cup after Fifa boss Infantino floated a plan to sell parts of the tournament to private investors in a deal worth around £15 billion, according to the Mail.
“The Bondi massacre has blown up Australian politics” – The Australian establishment’s meek response to the terrorist atrocity has left it vulnerable to the rise of the populist One Nation party, reports the Telegraph.
“They used my case to make an example” – Lucy Connolly talks to the Free Speech Union’s Connie Shaw about being sentenced to more than two-and-a-half years in jail for a single tweet.
