Bruges Group Blog

We hear about a crisis in mental health which requires urgent solutions, but it may be that, rather than any physical cause, this is the result of the way in which the realities of our modern world are affecting peoples’ perceptions.

Those living in these islands for the past two millennia have had much to cause them concern. The dictatorship of the Roman Empire, the wars between the original British and the Saxons, then those between the latter and the Danes, followed by the Norman Conquest, the many wars with Spain, France and others, culminating in the battles with Germany, and then the Cold War. In addition we have endured plagues, and famines, while much of the nation lived in what we would now describe as poverty.

Today we have been faced with the Covid pandemic, the renewal of war on the European continent in Ukraine, demands that we wear sackcloth and ashes for the past sins of our ancestors, accept blame for supposed climate change, and fret over matters of sexual identity. If there is any truth in American police dramas, as shown on TV, psychiatrists seem to be inventing countless new phobias, and other mental conditions, although it often seems that these are produced by defence lawyers trying to excuse the guilty.

There are however two major differences between our times, and the past. Firstly for many centuries, however bad things were, the vast majority had a religious faith, which offered a hope, and for most, a certainty, that there was an order to their lives. presided over by a beneficent deity, who would ensure that in the end justice would prevail, and they would enter a blissful new life. Now, with so many believing in no such thing, people face an existence in a vast, unending, perhaps eternal universe, with only personal oblivion to which to look forward at the end.

However, such thoughts may usually be far from most people’s thoughts, but what is not is the fact that the unprecedented expansion in communications brought about by the technological revolution is bringing concerns before us that would not have disturbed our ancestors. I can remember when the first live satellite signal to Britain from the United States was broadcast via satellite on July 23, 1962, but now we think nothing of speaking live to friends in Australia from our own studies at home. Where once, if one had an opinion on some issue which one wished to share publicly it was necessary to write a letter to a newspaper, or hold a meeting, now everyone with access to the Internet can broadcast their views to their heart’s content via social media. The inevitable result is that people are worried more and more by things of which they would not have been aware in the past, and expected to take positions on matters that do not impinge on their daily lives, and on which nothing they do or say would have any effect.

In 1973 the French author and explorer, Jean Raspail, published his dystopian novel “The Camp of the Saints”, which portrayed the destruction of Western civilisation by Third World mass immigration to France and the West, much of it by sea. Its name comes from the bible’s book of revelation, which depicts the apocalypse. Unsurprisingly it was decried by many as being racist, and indeed it has been popular with parties and groups who espouse far right policies. However, it returned to the best seller list in France in 2011

It undoubtedly contains underlying assumptions about the differences between racial groups, which run contrary to contemporary beliefs. Those of us who espouse Christian values know that the young child in a Third World slum is as important, and worthy, as any rich denizen of a rich country, while the accident of birth should be no guide as to the life to which one aspires.

However there can be no doubt as to its relevance to the question which is becoming more and more central to the modern world, that concerning the mass movement of peoples across the globe, and in particular for us in the UK, confronting the continued, and growing problem of illegal immigration across the Channel. On one end of the argument would be a halt to all immigration, on the other a free for all, with no limits imposed, and where the line is drawn is of increasing importance.

In the modern world a full stop would be impracticable, as well as immoral, as those fleeing in fear of their lives must be given hope of a refuge. To open the door entirely would, apart from provoking a massive adverse reaction among the indigenous population, very quickly reduce the host country to chaos, and economic destruction. We have tried to compromise with limits applied, yet valid refugees being welcomed, in particular those from areas, such as Ukraine, where conflict is taking place.

When looking at the specifics it is clear that the vast majority of those coming across on small boats are young men, albeit accompanied bya much smaller number of women and children. In addition, interviews with those arriving reveal that a majority are coming from countries which are not being subject to violent conflicts. These facts make clear that the bulk of these migrants are in fact motivated by economic factors, and should therefore be taking their place with those who are taking the legal route to claiming asylum, not being allowed to jump to the head of the queue. It should also be noted that they will have been paying considerable sums to criminals, indicating that they are not destitute, while they are coming directly from France, a country not considered dangerous, and where they should be claiming asylum.

It is quite understandable that very many people from the third world would wish to live in the West, but we must also consider the fact that we lack the infrastructure ranging from GPs, housing and employment to absorb unlimited numbers. Those who constantly seek to block anything the government tries to do to stop the flow of illegal immigration refuse to answer the direct question as to how many immigrants they would consider too many, and instead resort abusing those attempting to find a workable compromise as racists. It is doubtful that the lawyers, and metropolitan liberals supporting open door policies would themselves find their own jobs and way of life under threat, as the burden would fall upon the working class in already deprived areas.

Those left liberals, indulging in their usual virtue signalling at no immediate cost to themselves, should reflect that, if nothing is done, there will inevitably be a reaction which could affect far more than immigration policy.

If Elon Musk succeeds in ending the left liberal bias on Twitter, which he will find hard, perhaps he might turn his attention to ‘NextDoor’, the local internet, where the same morons are allowed to run riot. Although I never touch social media, as so many of its users have obviously forgotten to take their tablets, I have used ‘NextDoor’, as one can advertise goods for sale, or seek information on local tradesmen etc. However it does also open the door to postings on any subject, so the woke, and other idiots, frequently add comments on a number of social issues, but always from the left liberal point of view. Any of us who respond are then subjected to abuse, with no effort being made to answer anything we say, the comments being full of claims, and no substance.

Remainers accuse Leavers of xenophobia, to doubt man made climate change causes the extreme environmentalists to call us scientific illiterates at best, although more usually morons, any statement pointing out that the British Empire was not all bad, and that one should leave the past to the past, is greeted with accusations of racism, as does any questioning of allowing thousands of illegal immigrants to land on our beaches, while if one dares to question the left consensus on sexual matters, particularly ‘trans’ issues this provokes completely over the top abuse.

I recently encountered this latter crowd when I dared to mention ‘so called’ trans men, pointing out that one female inmate of a prison had been raped by one such, as had a female occupant of a hospital ward. This generated hysteria, with me accused of being a rabid right wing transphobe, which some were unable to answer because they were so upset. Poor little snowflakes!

One particularly moronic woman posted the following “Your hate and fear is palpable. Your comments are abhorrent. You have absolutely no idea with regards to “ trans” personal issues and use media propaganda and stereotyping to spread hate, fear and paranoia. This is the same type demonising of the Jewish race and paranoia and hate that was spread in 1930’s Germany, U.K. and many other countries due to Fascism. So that illustrates exactly what you are. A Facist through and through filled with hate. Or in other words a sad little man”. This directed at someone who hates Nazis, and fascists, and who has always supported Israel!

This same lunatic followed up with “You have no hate yet you hate trans. You say you want to protect the rights of free speech but free speech begins with tolerance. Tolerance of everyone in our society not just the people we decide should have free speech. Women fought for rights and so do trans fight for rights. A trans person doesn’t choose who they are - they simply are the way they are. Those who aren’t trans are lucky enough to know who they are but I don’t expect you to understand that or to understand the mental anguish or persecution that many trans endure and yet you choose to judge and persecute trans people more by what incidents you read depicted propaganda in the media. Yes Goebbels and Mosley would have been extremely proud of you. Your hate is evidenced by your hate comments. You are the bigot. I believe In tolerance and equality. I think a trans person has just as many rights as the next person as a human being first and foremost and should be treated as such. The difference is I know trans people and value them. I also know women and value them. Just as much as I know men and value them. Each one is a person and as such are all entitled to rights. You don’t see any of them as people. You just divide them into labels that’s the difference and one label disgusts you. As for trying to protect women- don’t make me laugh. That’s your justification you tell yourself for your hatred. Keep lying to yourself because I can assure you no one else believes you”. This latter comment was because I dared to defend J K Rowling, and said that I supported the hard won rights of women.

After all this I replied in some anger, although without abuse, yet I then found that the ‘moderators’ had removed me from the forum for a week, because I had breached their laws on politeness. These latter must either be more snowflakes, who cry if they hear anyone arguing, or else just products of our modern education system, who believe all the rubbish the liberal left spouts. I suspect the latter.

What is clear is that most of these imbeciles are not themselves ‘trans’, but are merely virtue signalling to prove how wonderful they are (they think!). I expect that the few who do come under the ‘trans’ heading would rather be left alone to get on with their lives, but they are just cannon fodder for the mainly white, middle class, university (if you can call them that these days) educated idiots.

These people cannot be stopped from ranting, but it would be of great help if the silent majority, who rightly regard them with contempt, would join me in hitting back. If enough were then censored by the ‘moderators’ it would make a good case for closing the whole cesspit down.

The last two words of David Lean’s magnificent film “The Bridge over the River Kwai” are spoken by the character Major Clipton, when he contemplates the chaos surrounding him, as he cries out “madness, madness”. I have the same reaction when I look at the insanity which is distorting our culture, as ‘woke’ imbeciles are allowed to run amok, forcing changes which no one but they, and their idiotic followers want.

We now see a man, Lia Thomas, who has ‘transited’ to a woman, becoming the first transgender woman to win an NCAA swimming title. Anyone whom dares to question whether such people should be allowed to compete in the women's division after transitioning, is subjected to abuse, and threats for doing so. One of our sporting heroines, Sharron Davies MBE, has revealed that she has been subjected to such threats over her views on transgender women competing in women's sport, when she stated that it was unfair for such women for to be competing against normal biological females. She wrote: "I’ve received several threats to myself and my work because I present evidence based facts on the unfairness of male inclusion in women’s sport. Which is biological sex based decriminalisation. I will not stop bringing these actual facts into the light or be bullied into silence. I’m used to it now. But I feel we are turning the corner and open debate to find science based solutions are not far away that will protect the integrity and rights of females in sport as well as offering up ways to be inclusive but not as the cost of another groups’ rights."

Thomas' victory came after a civil rights complaint was submitted against the University of Pennsylvania for permitting this person to compete on its swimming team, it being pointed out that Lia's ranking was 462nd when competing in the male ranks. One competitor, Reka Gyorgy, complained to the athletics association about its decision to let Lia race against "biological women". However Labour equalities minister MP Charlotte Nichols disgracefully congratulated Lia on the achievement, saying "As a former competitive swimmer myself, indeed, I know full well how much training is required for a title like this. Anyone trying to diminish Lia Thomas' achievement because of lazy transphobia should frankly pipe down. Huge congratulations to her." That this nonsense should emanate from someone tasked with achieving equality for women is unsurprising, as Labour spokesmen and women now seem unable to distinguish between the sexes, something most normal people have no problem doing. The giants of the Labour past must be spinning in their graves.

Another example of this lunacy is the situation which has arisen at the Putney Tennis Club where the membership form has classed the option for 'female' as 'no longer valid'. The club stated that this was glitch, but, as one of its members says, “someone had to type in “Female (no longer valid)” , while another said that they suspected that the club had been taken over by ‘woke’ loonies, and this confirmed it.

Nottingham university continues to prove that it no longer deserves the name “University”, as it cancelling the offer of an honorary degree to Dr Tony Sewell, because his report on race in the UK failed to reinforce the former’s prejudices against white people. A statement was issued saying that "The university has strict criteria governing the award of honorary degrees, because these are conferred at our public graduation ceremonies. The criteria were revised a number of years ago to preclude us from awarding them to figures who become the subject of political controversy, so that a day of celebration for our graduates does not attract such controversy.” This from an establishment that has no problem cosying up to the fascists of Communist China.

A similar example of our so called universities being in the hands of the woke is of course Jesus College, Cambridge, again an institution willing to make excuses for China, but determined to remove the plaque in their chapel dedicated to the philanthropist Tobias Rustat because of false claims about his connections to slavery. For once right prevailed, and the decision of he Consistory Court of the Diocese of Ely was that the plaque should remain, but of course the monomaniacs of woke are determined not to leave it at that, being prepared to spend even more on continuing to pursue this false claim. In a similar refusal to accept outcomes the idiots at Oriel College, Oxford, with their “Rhodes Must Fall” campaign, refuse to accept that they have lost.

On a different front the Mayor of Woke, Sadiq Khan, has warned commuters that “staring” can be a form of sexual harassment and has launched a series of Transport for London posters that feature the mayor and British Transport Police’s emblems. So now we have the situation where a chap might be sitting there, absentmindedly thinking about his dinner, and finding himself suddenly accused by some neurotic female opposite of staring. Of course this sort of vague offence relies on the usual woke principle of guilty unless proved innocent, and can only provoke conflict where there was absolutely no offence committed.

When attending a recent football match I looked around at the crowd, and it occurred to me that probably almost no one there cared one iota about woke, and most would not even know what it was. This whole social movement is the product of largely white, middle class, university educated, metropolitan liberals, and is in fact an attack on working class culture by a bunch of elitists, who, in the past, would have been dismissed with contempt as twerps. The true blame for its spread rests with the organisations, and businesses, who choose to take it seriously, and allow their HR departments to persecute decent people in its name. Ordinary, well meaning citizens should treat the whole thing as the madness it is, and, where possible, boycott any body which is revealed as having adopted it.

I recently attended the funeral of one of my old office colleagues who, like me, worked for over forty years in the same organisation. At the wake I reminisced with other long term colleagues about our early days in the workplace, in the 1960s, and 1970s, comparing them with what we came to know towards the ends of our careers, and with what young friends now tell us about their experiences.

At one time health and safety rules and regulations, although obviously necessary in industrial environments, was confined in offices to exercising what was basically common-sense, while we had a personnel department, which dealt with matters of recruitment, and staff welfare. As in any social environment we naturally had our ups and downs with others, although, not being complete sissies, we could argue quite aggressively without it becoming anything requiring interference from anyone in authority, while many of us, myself included, met and married girls from within the office.

What a contrast we see today. Health and Safety has expanded to a ridiculous extent, far more than is justified by the reality, while that accursed non profession HR has spread like the plague throughout organisations, producing absurd policy documents, which only hamper effective working, and which most people ignore whenever they can. HR is responsible for making mountains out of mole hills when it comes to inter personnel relations, setting up inquiries to examine what we would once have regarded as trivial disputes. Far from being a department like Personnel, which tried to help staff, HR is an arm of management, allowing senior officers to keep their distance when implementing policies which treat staff unfairly. As far as romance in the office is concerned it would be a bold young man to make advances to a girl he found attractive, as the sexual Thought Police would be on him like a ton of bricks.

This increasing crushing of normal life is of course now everywhere, as the right of people to exercise free speech is more and more constrained by the metropolitan elite, aided and abetted by the morons of social media, with ‘twitter storms’, and cancel culture treated as valid by a weak, incompetent media, and enforced by politicians frightened to stand up for the values which this country has always represented. The Free Speech Union must now be at risk of overwhelmed by the number of people seeking help in opposing these fascists of the Left. We must not allow the latter to say “you can’t say that” without saying “Oh, yes I can”, and cease to listen to the whining from vanishingly small sexual minorities.

When we dare to oppose the rewriting of history by know nothing activists, or resent attacks on our heroes such as Winston Churchill and Douglas Bader, by those who would be living in a Nazi nightmare but for them, we are accused of being at best reactionary, or even of being Nazis. We now see what have been described as ‘blobs’ undermining our nation, via the education system, the health service and the civil service.

When I think of the brave men and women of previous generations who rallied to the colours, or stoically endured massive privations to save us from foreign tyrannies I have only absolute contempt for the pathetic wimps who now infest our universities, with their demands to ‘feel safe’, as they are too feeble to tolerate the idea that their opinions might not be shared by everyone. Clearly there are limitations on what the government can do to deal with these inadequates, particularly as they are often supported by the useless university authorities but, if I were PM, I would be seeking to cut off all funding to any educational establishment which yielded to their demands, while introducing policies aimed at ridding the country of the hundreds of Mickey Mouse degrees on offer, and forcing jumped up polytechnics to cease to be described as universities. Boris is not alone in the political class in avoiding this subject, but it is a matter which a truly determined Conservative politician should be addressing.

The bureaucrats in the NHS go their merry way, wasting vast sums on administration, while resisting any attempts to reform, while the upper echelons of the civil service continue their campaign to undermine Brexit.

The latest spat between a Left liberal Mayor of London and a ‘right on’ Metropolitan Police Commissioner would be funny, were things not so serious. Cressida Dick should never have been appointed head of the Metropolitan Police after the operation she directed as leader of Gold Command led to the death of the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, an appointment condemned by his family. Nevertheless the desire of our political class to display their politically correct credentials ensured that they preferred to select the first female head, regardless of other issues.

Now that she is retiring there is an opportunity to make fundamental changes to the Met, returning it to its proper function of fighting genuine crime, but the continued dominance of the so called progressives makes such action unlikely. Unfortunately TV’s DCI Hunt is a fictional character, but it is his model of policing which would restore common-sense to the force, although whether any such as he could exist under the modern leadership is doubtful. An end should be put to the growing power of what is an embryonic Thought Police, spending time pursuing innocent citizens for using their right of free speech to oppose the nostrums of the politically correct, while the use of trained constables for monitoring computer crime should be stopped, a separate expert agency, on the lines of GCHQ, being created for such matters, who, once having established the details, could pass the evidence to the police for final action. The public wants the police to be visible on the streets, dealing with both petty and major crime, not sitting in offices looking at computers, or attempting to intimidate law abiding citizens by ‘checking their thinking’, as has happened on more than one occasion. However I do not think anything will change until we have a government that is not in thrall to the vociferous activists of the Left. Whether that will ever be the case is, at best, doubtful.

The government has signed up to the ludicrous Green agenda, which is set fair to totally undermine our economy, forcing people to abandon their cars, and to pay through the nose for energy, all to follow a theory based on the false premise that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drives climate change, when an impartial examination of the scientific evidence, and the historical record, reveals that this is totally false.

When I was young we had serious politicians like Attlee and Churchill dealing with matters of true importance. Now we have a bunch of lightweights obsessing over rubbish such as ‘cakegate’. If this country is to survive in any recognisable form the ordinary, decent, normal people must fight back against those destroying it, whether they be the liberal left, or the lunatics who subscribe to the so called ‘woke’ agenda. I am sure that I am not alone in being sick of the nagging busybodies who seem to think that they have the right to order decent people about.

We will receive no help from the biased belly speakers of the BBC, or from politicians who know little, and care even less, of what the electorate really wants. We need leadership, not appeasement of the lowest common denominator with the biggest mouths!

Most law abiding people are aware than the criminal justice system is failing to apply to the guilty the sort of sentences which are deserved, and which are a deterrent to others. Too many escape with suspended sentences, and even those who are incarcerated may expect the actual time served to be significantly less than that handed out in the first place, while the frequent redefinition of murder as manslaughter is clearly intended to keep the extent of the former hidden from the electorate, as the liberals who have dominated the system for decades do not want it to be clear just how damaging the abolition of capital punishment has been. The number of youngsters stabbed to death in London in recent years is proof of this.

However there is another side to the coin, which is equally reprehensible, and that is the manner in which people are being subjected to totally unjustified sanctions, as one of the most fundamental principles of British law is that one is innocent until proved guilty, something that is being weakened on several fronts.

The justice system is being subverted by changes, emanating largely from too much attention being paid to the uneducated emoters of social media, and their so called Twitter storms. It should be obvious that accusations are proof of nothing, unless backed by some sort of genuine evidence, but we now have those accused being treated as guilty, in particular in relation to sexual matters.

Of course rapists should be punished, but there have been many cases where the complainant is proved to have lied, or which rely on ‘He said, She said’, without any substantiating evidence. We have seen instances of men being sent to prison, only to be released later, when it becomes clear that the complainant had consented to sex, only to regret doing so in retrospect.

Even worse, how on earth is someone supposed to defend themselves against assertions that they did something decades ago, as seems to happen far too regularly. Most of us can’t remember what we did a week ago last Tuesday, let alone decades ago. That employers punish the accused without waiting for a conviction is a disgrace, and failure to reverse such actions when the person is shown to be innocent utterly deplorable.

(One ridiculous anomaly involving those actually being guilty is that, in the UK, if a lad of seventeen has consensual sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend then not only is he convicted of a crime, but must sign the sex offenders register, which will blight him for life. He is also frequently referred to as a pervert by the self appointed moralists of social media. However if the couple lived in Japan, where the age of consent is thirteen, no crime would have occurred, and clearly normal heterosexual acts between those just past the age of puberty, while inadvisable for other reasons, are not perverted. There are many of us who would not approve of his actions, but, although breaking the law should be sanctioned, the punishment meted out is excessive, and too long lasting).

Those who are actually guilty should be punished, but no accused person, who is not found to be so by a court, should be left in a worse position than that they were in before the accusation was made, in relation to employment, residence or indeed anything else. We have seen Hollywood film producers drop actors because of such unproven allegations, while recent cases have also involved loss of reputation and worse suffered by those who have done nothing wrong. The often heard claim that “there is no smoke without fire” is nonsense, as anyone, even anonymously, can accuse another of wrongdoing without it appears the need to justify such claims. It is reminiscent of the Great Terror which followed the 1789 French Revolution when anonymous accusations of being an enemy of the people resulted in many being guillotined when they were actually the objects of sexual or business jealousy, or even just of personal dislike.

This sort of trial by public opinion, not facts, is made worse by the attitude of the police, who now seem to consider themselves a Thought Police, permitted to pursue people for their opinions. That one member of a force told a member of the public that he was speaking to him “to check on his thinking” proves this, while the way the police went on a fishing expedition to find anyone willing to corroborate the loathsome pedophile, Carl Beech, who accused Sir Edward Heath and others of crimes they did not commit was despicable. One police spokesman stated that the there was substance to the charges, and actually invited anyone with any further claims to come forward. That other liars then did so merely proves that accusations without evidence should be treated with utter contempt. Incidentally the supposed need for policeman to have attended university is yet another nail in the coffin of common-sense policing, as experience is a better guide to human nature than book learning.

The only way to stop these offences to natural justice continuing to hold sway is to ensure that those who make false accusations are held accountable. In the end Beech did go to prison, but how many others have enjoyed their fifteen minutes of fame at the expense of the innocent, and never been punished for doing so?

Amid all the disruption caused by Covid a few truths have become obvious, that up to now have either been denied, or ignored.

The constant warnings issued by NHS trusts about the health service being overwhelmed by demand have finally made clear to many just how dysfunctional the organisation has become. Those of us who for years have pointed out that in fact this bureaucratic monster has an insatiable need for funds, due to the ridiculous numbers of box ticking bureaucrats involved, whose every response to a problem is to expand their administrative empire, while creating evermore absurd rules which must be followed by front line staff. Retired nurses and GPS, who have offered their aid in the campaign to vaccinate the population have reported that, thanks to bureaucratic intransigence, they have been rejected due to a supposed failure to meet the requirements of these pen pushers, even though the issues involved are irrelevant. No one doubts the commitment, and expertise of the doctors and nurses, but, thanks to the aforementioned facts, comments in the press, and by friends and acquaintances indicate that the myth that the NHS is above criticism has been debunked.

It has also begun to become clear to ordinary people that, at a time when many are losing loved ones, or suffering prolonged periods of serious illness, the constant harping on nonsense by the so called ‘woke’ is no longer a source of amusement, but is something which much be opposed, and indeed crushed. This rag tag alliance of sexual neurotics, supposed intelligent undergraduates, ignorant of history, and the plain deranged have had a good run of being taken seriously when they have rejected all sense, and denied historical reality in pursuit of their insane agendas, but more and more people are reacting with anger, not laughter. That they receive support from individuals in the entertainment profession, organisations such as the National Trust, and unfortunately even some errant members of the Royal family merely indicates that such irrationality can affect anyone, however eminent.

The bias of the broadcast media, in particular the BBC has also been exposed, as everything the government has tried to do in the face of an unprecedented crisis has been derided, criticised, and ridiculed. Whatever course is followed the BBC will oppose, making Boris damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t. There is much that the Prime Minister may have done wrong, for instance in his embracing of the Green agenda, but there is no doubt that the left liberal agenda followed by these so called unbiased commentators ensures that he will receive no credit for those things which he has done right. These people, and I include those such as commentators on Sky News who choose to advise the Americans to transfer their support from the UK to the EU, think that they are there to make the news, not report it. The number of people who have stated that they will no longer watch the BBC makes clear that the latter has been rumbled.

However perhaps the most significant instance of realisation dawning is that, following the wide variety of predictions, modelling, and general advice, concerning the pandemic offered by experts, it is obvious that following the science is not as easy as first thought, and that scientists are not quite as infallible as their reputation suggests. Far from them being like Plato’s Philosopher Kings, dispensing absolute wisdom, they are more like the Gods of Olympus, squabbling among themselves, and pursuing their own agendas. While most are well intentioned some are also influenced by the desire for reputation, sometimes a liking for their fifteen minutes of fame, and occasionally by their connections with commercial organisations.

That the public have now become aware that their lives may be disrupted to no purpose should ensure that expert scientific pronouncements in general should be taken with a large pinch of salt, and actions taken only if the issues are examined dispassionately, and not subject to subjective factors arising from the fact that scientists are only human. It is to be hoped that the prospect of massive rises to domestic energy bills will awaken people to the fact that uncritical acceptance of the dubious theories of the vociferous Green lobby comes at a significant cost. While it may make some feel virtuous to airily talk of saving the planet the reality is that, unless the absurd demands of the climate extremists are rejected we shall all be very much poorer, with a standard of living permanently lower than that which we have known in the past.

Many scientists disagree with the claims that the theory of anthropological global warming is beyond dispute but, thanks to the craven action by politicians who have merely bowed before the environmentalists, we have closed coal mines, ignored the large reserves of energy available from fracking, and allowed substantial reserves of gas below the North Sea to remain unexploited. The fact that we are thereby reduced to buying gas from Russia, at a greatly increased cost, and forcing a greater dependence on those who wish us ill, does not seem to have occurred to the fanatics from dear Greta downwards.

If millions are not to be either reduced to poverty, or frozen in their own homes, the real cost of passively yielding to the clamour of an aggressive minority must be made clear, and a major change made to the direction of travel on energy policy, based on objective science, not on a supposed consensus that does not exist, except in the minds of those such as the BBC. As the public finds that the very real consequences of going Green involve losing their cars, and living in freezing homes, while paying through the nose for their energy, we may expect the uncritical approval of the environmentalists to disappear like the morning dew.

Those who know the Bible will have been horrified by the massacre of the innocents, which took place when Herod the Great, King of Judea, orders the execution of all male children two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem, in an attempt to kill the infant Messiah. Today we see a different sort of slaughter which targets the innocent.

As a Catholic I naturally abhor the killing of so many unborn babies, as every excuse is made to allow this to happen, despite all the promises made at the time abortion was made legal. However, for the moment I will reserve that argument for a different occasion, and concentrate on the deaths of those already born.

I am sure that I am not alone in feeling a sick anger at the murder of poor little Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. As so often the authorities, despite warnings from concerned relatives, ignored the obvious abuse, but no one should forget that it was the evil perpetrators who are fully responsible for this terrible crime. When I think that this little boy is recorded as saying “Nobody loves me, no one is going to feed me” I am consumed with fury that an innocent should die convinced that this was true.

Now we have the equally awful case of the sweet little girl Star Hobson, who was murdered at the age of 16 months by her mother’s female ‘partner’ while the mother herself stood by and did nothing. Indeed, while any normal person would, if they heard a child crying, try to help them, these two sub humans just laughed. As usual the useless social workers allowed these scum to talk their way out of it, but this time it is reported that, because they were lesbians, decided to treat the warnings from the family as being motivated by an anti-gay prejudice.

When my late mother was in her fifties, and after having raised two sons, she, as a convinced Christian, volunteered to work as a social worker looking after the less fortunate, including children. Many of her colleagues had a similar background. Suddenly they were all told that their services were no longer required, as all social workers were now required to have a university degree, so they were all dismissed, to be replaced by bits of kids, who had no practical knowledge of bringing up children, and, worse, had been through left wing indoctrination by the so called lecturers in the so called subject of sociology, so they were obsessed with applying the nostrums of the Left, rather than dealing with the real world. As a consequence middle class white parents are treated as guilty until proved innocent, while those whom the Left love to consider victims by virtue of their ethnicity or sexual orientation are excused time and time again.

However, despite the deserved condemnation of these useless ideologues one must reserve one’s true detestation for the actual perpetrators. I wonder if those liberals, from Sydney Silverman, and Roy Jenkins, onwards, who liked to virtue signal by opposing the death penalty, ever thought of the blameless victims, who might have been saved if vile criminals, such as these killers, knew that they would pay the ultimate penalty for their actions. Even if in some cases it would not be a deterrent, it would nevertheless be just what they deserve.

I anticipate that such liberals will respond by raising the danger of executing the wrong person as has happened in the past, but of course one must be absolutely sure that the conviction is sound, and in these days of advanced forensic science, with DNA testing etc., this is likely to be true. Any doubt should ensure that the death penalty would not apply. From all that we know about these particular cases, from previous cases such as Victoria Climbie, and from those of many other children murdered by those who should be caring from them, no such doubt exists.

This is all part of the wider crisis we face regarding law and order. I recall that, when capital punishment was abolished, we were promised that 'life will mean life' for murderers, yet this has proved to be a lie. On a daily basis we hear of fatal stabbing, and even shootings, in London and other urban centres, and while the liberals try and conceal the extent of the carnage by redefining murders as manslaughter whenever they can, the true scale is obvious to anyone who examines the daily reports. Additionally, so often when innocent children are killed by those who should be caring for them, or left to die of starvation by feckless adults, the perpetrators frequently get away with reduced charges, and pathetic sentences. When one adds to all this the fact that jail sentences are rarely completed in full, most criminals being released after only half has been served, it is certain that lawbreakers are being appeased, not punished. The principle to follow should be that advocated by Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado "make the punishment fit the crime", as deprivation of liberty is not the only sanction that can be applied. Of course much more severe punishments must also be applied to those whose actions aid the criminals, such as middle class cocaine users.

I recall seeing a cartoon in the late 1950s in which a woman was being beaten to the ground by a group of teddy boys, and a psychologist was rushing over saying “there are some young men here in need of help”. This sums up the pathetic attitude of those who have been allowed to dominate the justice system for decades. Although they no longer do so, at one time opinion polls were held on the subject of capital punishment, always showing large majorities in favour of its use, but still the ‘we know better’ brigade has had their way. The blood of countless innocents is on their head.

Perhaps one day we will have a true populist government, which will replace the current set of social workers with those who can recognize evil when they encounter it, and heed the demand that the merciless killers of innocents pay the ultimate penalty, but I am not holding my breath.