Tweets seen today
A sad story, but also not sad. I hope that some time, in some way, they will all meet again.
The “global warming”/”climate change” narrative goes back even further, to at least 1977, when a very alarmist documentary was screened in the UK. I myself missed it, because I was in Rhodesia at the time. Still, I also missed the ridiculous Queen’s Silver Jubilee nonsense, so cannot complain…(#Winning!). I read a paperbook book about the documentary and the ideas and political background behind it (the book was very taken with the “global warming” theory), about a year later.
My view has not changed over the past 20 years when the “climate change” narrative has become a large part of international policy. It is that forms of climate change have occurred (irrespective of human input) since the Earth existed in anything like its present form.
It is known, historically, that is to say in the past few thousand years, that the climate (eg in the UK) has warmed and cooled at times, well before industrialization and also before there was a vast population on the Earth.
I have addressed these issues on previous occasions: see, for example, https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/01/26/the-tide-is-coming-in-reflections-on-the-possible-end-of-our-present-civilization-and-what-might-follow/.
That is not to say that climate change is not happening. In some areas of the world, it is noticeable even by the public (eg the fact that Eastern Australia is far hotter now than it was when I was there in the late 1960s).
It is unsurprising that young people, anyone under 20 or so certainly, are very taken with the narrative pumped out by those running the narrative, and controlling the likes of Greta Nut. The proven frauds by the IPCC from 10-15 years ago (Himalayan Glaciers disappearing by 2020, Indian rivers drying up, the Kilimanjaro snows etc etc) will have escaped most of those young people.
Causation of climate change is not really known; some seeming causes are doubtful; remedies, if any, more doubtful yet.
In fact, within bounds, and overall, global cooling would be far worse than global warming; the history of past centuries shows that.
The “climate change” narrative as a whole is being used (as is “the global pandemic” story) to force through socio-political changes on a vast scale, in preparation for the next 33-year cycle beginning in 2022.
There should be far fewer people on the Earth. That is true, and will probably be the case before very long. A population of about a quarter or even a tenth of the present would be good, especially if mainly European.
Best idea: not to have sub-Saharans in the UK or even part of Europe.
Don’t forget the part-Jew, part-Levantine chancer currently posing as Prime Minister.
Migration-invasion. The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan in action, flooding the UK with backward elements.
Interesting and, indeed, alarming, if true.
I remember some of those Jack Hargreaves TV programmes. Early 1970s. Don’t think that they were all children’s TV as such, though.
Despite Hargreaves reminiscing on TV about his modest childhood, he actually attended a fee-paying school; as for his “country old folk” persona on those TV shows, he was also a director of a small TV station and, earlier, editor of magazines, including the once-popular Picture Post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hargreaves.
A lucky escape
If those magistrates are interested, I think that I have a London bridge to sell them!
The fact is that, especially in the lower courts, there are sometimes perverse verdicts and/or decisions. I imagine that all barristers will be able to recall some from their own experience. I (wrongfully disbarred in 2016) certainly do recall a few.
However, I am not sure that the above verdict is actually perverse, when looked at more closely.
Disappointingly, the Daily Telegraph account is less informative than that of the Daily Mail. The Mail reports the key factor in the decision of the magistrates, i.e. that, given that the defendant did drink a considerable amount in the hour after the crash, the court was unwilling to infer that she was above the legal limit at the material time.
Frankly, while that verdict might not have been actually “perverse”, in my view it was still wrong. The court had plenty of credible evidence before it to support a “Guilty” verdict, in my view. The victim was “credible“, the defendant “misleading” and her Pakistani friend “incredible“, in the words of the magistrates. She had therefore been drinking while driving.
The details of the crash itself, together with the evidence of the victim, fully support an inference that, beyond any reasonable doubt, the defendant was over the legal limit while driving. A guilty verdict would have been better. She was lucky.
On the wider sociological point, one trembles for Britain when there are so many drunken sluts like her driving around. It goes beyond the simple road safety aspect. Even her friend and (possibly perjuring) witness, presumably a Muslim at least by origin, seems to have had a litre of vodka at hand! Britain. 2021.