Tag Archives: MPs

An Open Letter to my MP about Climate Change and De-Carbonizing Transport

I have just sent an e-mail to my Member of Parliament (Jeremy Hunt) regarding the submission I made two weeks ago in response to the UK government’s consultation on “de-carbonizing transport”.

Here is the covering e-mail, which also draws his attention to a long, complex article I have written on lockdown actions taken against the COVID-19 virus, and how appropriate and effective they have been.

Dear Mr Hunt,

Please find attached, for your consideration as my MP, two documents on the subject of climate change and the UK government’s plans to “de-carbonize” transport. The first is a two-page letter, with a number of questions on these matters, whose relevance I very much hope you will appreciate. The second is a 56-page PDF, which I submitted two weeks ago as my response to the recent government “consultation” on these matters.

While writing, I would also like to take the opportunity to give you a link to an article I have recently written and published on the subject of lockdowns against the COVID-19 virus. The article is here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/11/covid-19-lock-downs-or-cock-ups/.

This is, of course, an area in which as a former health secretary you have almost unrivalled expertise. My researches have led me towards the conclusion that the lockdowns, as implemented in the UK (and many other countries), have been way over the top compared to what was actually necessary. I realize you might personally disagree; but I am sure you will be aware that the longer all this stuff goes on, the less inclined ordinary people will be to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Lock

And here is the two-page letter, with the questions:

<Address redacted>

Jeremy Hunt MP

(South West Surrey)

House of Commons





13 August 2020


Dear Mr Hunt


Climate Change and De-Carbonizing Transport


Twelve years ago, on July 14th, 2008, I wrote you a nine-page letter urging you find out the facts regarding climate change. And, having done so, to take the strongest possible stand against the UK’s Climate Change Bill. You never bothered even to acknowledge my letter, let alone reply to it. Even though I prompted you about it when you phoned me to solicit my vote the day before the 2010 election. I was, to say the least, disappointed in you.

Now, twelve years later, here we are again. But things have moved on, since you voted for that dreadful bill on that snowy night in October 2008.

Two weeks ago, I submitted a response to the government’s recent consultation on “de-carbonizing transport.” It is a 56-page PDF, and I include it in the attachments to my e-mail. I would ask you please, Mr Hunt, to read what I have to say, and to give full consideration to it. You are, after all, my one and only representative in a parliament, many of whose acts over the last year and more I consider to have gone well beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour. By its actions the parliament has, as far as I am concerned, brought itself into disrepute. And as a result, I have now lost all respect for it.

I would like to know your views on some of the issues I raise in my document. But I won’t expect you to dig into any of the scientific detail. Your liberal-arts education, and your many years of experience with government bureaucracy, should be sufficient for you to be able to address my questions.

  1. Do you agree with the quote from Bertrand Russell, with which I begin my Preface?
  2. Would you agree that government exists to serve the people, not to rule over them against their interests?
  3. Do you agree with me when I say: “you should expect government always to be reasonable towards the people it governs?”
  4. Do you agree with me when I say that MPs: “ought always to support the interests of the people they represent against encroachment by other political interests. For example, MPs in rural areas ought to champion the car as the best means of transport for people in their areas, even when it is pooh-poohed and threatened by the big-city slickers.”
  5. Would you agree that government, and those whom it funds, should always behave with honesty, integrity and good faith towards the public?
  6. Would you agree that government must never make costly commitments on behalf of the governed without rigorous justification?
  7. Would you agree that, in a case such as the allegations that human emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to catastrophic climate change, the burden of proof should always be on the accusers to substantiate their case beyond reasonable doubt?
  8. Would you agree that the UK Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment’s 2002 re-formulation of the precautionary principle, which I link to from my document as reference [5], was dishonest and done in bad faith? Would you agree that it had the effect, in matters such as the “climate change” allegations, of negating the presumption of innocence, inverting the burden of proof, and requiring the accused to prove a negative?
  9. Do you think that the BBC likening allowing climate change skeptics to speak to “letting someone deny last week’s football scores” violated their own guidelines on impartiality?
  10. Would you agree that the UK government’s 2009 abandonment of the social cost approach to valuing carbon dioxide emissions when considering policies, which I link to from my document as reference [6], was dishonest and done in bad faith?
  11. Do you think that the UK government’s 2010 “Climategate” inquiries were entirely honest and done in good faith?
  12. Would you agree that Extinction Rebellion is an extremist organization, and should never have been allowed to influence UK government policy?
  13. Do you think that the Committee for Climate Change is an independent, impartial body?
  14. Do you agree with me that setting arbitrary collective targets and limits on what people may do, for example “carbon budgets,” is unjust and tyrannical?
  15. Do you think that the UK government’s plans for implementing “zero carbon,” their costs, and the consequences to the people affected by them, have been fully thought through?
  16. Would you agree that the arrogant tone of the “setting the challenge” document, in particular in its use of words and phrases like “interventions,” “behaviour change” and “accelerating modal shift,” is inappropriate to the way in which a democratic government ought to treat its people?
  17. Would you agree with me when I say: “The UK government must commission a thorough, independent, scrupulously honest, unbiased audit of its own conduct, and the conduct of those it funded, in environmental matters over the period since 1970?”
  18. And finally, if you had known in 2008 that the policies resulting from the climate change agenda would eventually have such large negative consequences for the standard and quality of living of your constituents, would you have voted for the climate change bill?

I have put my case, as fully and eloquently as I can, in my PDF document. I hope that you will feel able to take Bertrand Russell’s sage advice, and seek the facts of the matter – just as I asked you to, twelve years ago. When you have done so, I think you will find that most, if not all, of my concerns on this matter are justified. What you decide to do then will, of course, be up to you.

Yours sincerely




Neil Lock

P.S. I will publish this letter as “An Open Letter to my MP about Climate Change and De-Carbonizing Transport” on my own small blog http://www.honestcommonsense.co.uk/, and on another blog where I am an author. I will publish your reply on my own blog when I receive it.

Enclosure: “Response to Consultation on ‘De-Carbonizing Transport’ in the UK,” July 31st, 2020.

GOD WHAT A fun thing, like flies to a lamp

David Davis

Now, we have all known about The Sting, which was designed to catch moneygrubbing GramscoFabiaNazis, who we hate and who we regard as sub-moral. Well, here is the way they got caught. What fun, like flies on a piece of fly-paper.

I don’t think these people actually know what fly-paper is. They are too young and have also probably had the “wrong parents”.

How sad can that be.

Look here, you GramscoStalinists: NOBODY, I repeat nobody, is stopping you from getting money. Money is lovely – did you ever meet a “capitalist” who said otherwise? I bet you 50p you did not.

Look guys, you can get all the money you could ever imagine. All you’d have to do is succeed at selling something that other bastards and buggers want to buy. Is it so hard?

Look at Bill Gates. He brought us, and you, all you effing bastards, out of the darkness of uncomputing. He brought you out of the darkness of unwindows, (and Steve Jobs is teflon-coated even today, why?) into the Dawn of DOS. Apple? What would “Apple” have done for you, if “Bad Bill” had not done what he did?  The “i-Phone” would be $1,369,995, and you’d not have a hope. So dream on.

I’m going to invent a Meddlar-fruiting hybrid called a F***-Apple. And I even have an i-Phone…but it’s really not the best. It’s, sort of…OK. It works, all right? But it’s not “intuitive”, it’s not “windowsy” and I can’t get to be fast on it. It’s too “Apple-y” and it wants to try to control my life too much.

I don’t “do my life” online. I’m an old liberatarian conservative blogger. And so I don’t really want that level of interaction.

This needs to be known

Michael Winning

I just seen this again in the Maily Dail, like I do sometimes. Current events dont seem to disabuse me of the same notion, like the bastards are still at the honeypot, thinking it’ll last them till they finally get us. I wish more people were more angry than they are. The Boss gets his trousers taken off by commenters for saying that these people will get killed and eaten but what else can you do in the ehnd?

Taliban “claim responsibility”…now we know [that they know] that they are winning.

David Davis

Libertarians don’t do wars. Not really. We all go about in a sort of drug-like RothbardoHayekian Haze, claiming never to want to initiate force or fraud, because of course that’s what States do, right? Of course they do, and of course it’s why we’re broadly all more or less in favour of small, controllable-by-Law, states, (some of us are in favour of no states at all, but not me, I have decided) which only do things like basic law-and-order, courts that anyone can apply to, impartial judges, possibly a small, efficient and uncorruptible Police Force of authorised civilians, and the like. And of course no ID cards or “passports” or any crap of that sort.

We also as a group are broadly against Britain’s involvement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, since it can be argued that Britain has “no vital foreign policy interest” in what may or may not go on in those places. As I have never tired of repeating, I do not agree, and never have done, that Britain has no business being there as an armed force. I am a Jihadist turned upside down: I take the view that it is the Jihad obligation, the absolute foreign-policy-duty no less, of liberal Classical States to actively destroy un-liberal scumbags, wherever they may be, if the nominal “State” on whose writ they scamper is unable so to do. If this was done, socialism, and also pre-capitalist death-cults which periodically use sex anda sort of yearning neo-pastoralism to infect rational civilisations, would simply melt away and disappear. But that’s the subject of another debate. What I mean to briefly dissect today is a change in the type of signals the “Taliban”, whatever that says it might be, is sending. The exceptional glaring tautology in what I have just said, namely the presence of British soldiers doing what I have described, at the bidding of a scumbag GramscoFabiaNazi administration at home here, is a result of the British State going GFN, and not a refutation of my premise.

In my long experience, terrorists, and other warlike agents of counter-revolution and people’s progress, tend to “claim responsibility” for dastardly deeds when they are ready to start dictating terms to what they see as the losing side. It’s a case of “we did this and we can do it some more: do you want that, and ultimate defeat, or shall we talk?” In the inverted scenario, such as, say, the Dambusters Raid, the Allies claimed responsibility globally from the rooftops, which wasn’t mechanically necessary I admit since there were crashed Lancasters scattered from Holland to the Ruhr, but it was a moral point being made, in front of an audience of spectators,  just like what this Taliban-man has just done.

The problem of wars is that there are only two ways out: victory or defeat. No “third way”, sorry Tony-B. If either Britain, or “The West” or indeed any individual ally involved in Afghanistan (Spain! Take Note, although you left earlier when some buggers who you tried later to say were Basques blew up all your trains) leaves before the Fat Lady Sings, it will be counted as a defeat, with all the malign foreign policy and (at home) inter-racial, and inter-precapitalist-barbarian-survival-guidetype issues that will flow from that.

Our own government today is the main difficulty, for this Taliban fellow knows it is on his side in the end, and wants him to win for Gramscian reasons. They’ve done a deal. “I’m Gordon…I’ll tell you what – I want to deconstruct and demoralise my Queen’s Armed Forces, so I can re-staff them with the right sort of Officers and persons so that I can then dissolve the People and elect another in their place. This is because  these forces are currently mostly viscerally opposed to me and my “getting on with my job”, and may refuse to “regulate” their own people back home here later. So I’ll send you periodic batches of good ones, which you can then kill a lot of, because I’ll deliberately make sure that you can, by only allowing them really really crap gear. When you think you’ve killed enough, and when enough of the present officers and squaddies have resigned in disgust, we’ll talk about me bowing to public opinion and “bringing the boys home”, and also about you getting hold of Afghanistan, and any industrial cities in the UK that you want your religious and legal writ to run in. And the monetary contribution you could reasonably make, to The Political Arm Of The British People, will be £…………………”

Talk about the German Army in 1918 being “stabbed in the back”!

The Lisbon Law: Now Hague says it too

David Davis

As Michael has observed here, it’s time to attack the Tories. We know Labour’s going to rig the election and get in again, so we might as well have fun trashing the Conservatives while the GramscoFabiaNazis still allow them to exist and “sit in Parliament”, as opposed to in a Gulag. If you sup with GFNs, you ought to have used a long spoon some time ago.

It makes you wonder: is it better to endure yet more years of ZanuLieBorg until 2015, knowing things will get rapidly even worse then they are now, ushering in full ID-carding-and-databasing, followed by allowing exit-visas only for trusties who have got lots of state-robbed cash: and which may cause a bloody revolution? Or perhaps to allow the Tories into government, assuming the Labour-election-rigging is not successful enough,  only to have these terrible things happen but just more slowly?

What ought a man to do? I mean not just for personal survival, but for those who may come after us in later centuries, and who will wonder why we allowed this to happen? Is the game still worth the candle, to try, again and again and again, to educate large numbers of people about individual liberty, or is it too late? Should we just concentrat instead on erasing the Enemy Class, if we can’t now force it to do what is right?

Clearly, food, fuels and electricity will cease to be in universal distribution to the extents that we have been used to under a moderately free economy. But we can mitigate this by returning in part to a kind of hybrid-post-pastoralist/part-industrial-manqué system: whereby those who can, will be mentoring and looking after others by teaching some basic but useful survival-skills and almost-forgotten crafts. In return obviously for something, maybe labour. Not at all what the Enemy Class was thinking I’m sure. Perhaps people with useful-survival-knowledge will be regarded as dangerous, and will be witch-hunted?

But I’m not saying you ought to stockpile tinned food yet. Petrol, maybe, and diesel, and sugar and salt perhaps, and stuff like plasters and medicines. Oh, and light-emitting diodes – those nice Chinese 20,000-millicandela, ultrabrite jobbies as we can probably rustle up enough chicken-shit each day to power some of those. 3.3v @ about 20mA typically, so a generator to charge a car-battery should keep series-strings of five each (at a full charge of 13,2v) going for years.

And we should re-learn practical coal mining.

1641 again: We knew it would happen: they love the expenses, the sexy food, the Zils and the kudos

David Davis

Well, he’s ratted on us too. Now watch UKIP being systematically taken apart, by the prevailing Gramscian-system, before the next election…if one is allowed.

All power is delightful, and absolute power is absolutely delightful.

When the food and electricity run out, the buggers will simply have to be killed and eaten, if only so we can survive one winter and then see what we can do about simply growing food and eating it. No time for lamp-posts and piano-wire. Not allowed by health and safety anyway.

It’s no use “lobbying your MP” any more, “writing to the papers about it”, or any rubbish like that. The time for that was past long ago. We simply have to force them to do what we want, by whatever it takes.

I feel that it is 1641, all over again. Very sad. All this time, wasted, for nothing.

« Older Entries