The renewable energy delusion

The latest COP gathering of the global doomsday climate alarmist cult has recently ended in Dubai. Agreement was reached to ‘transition away’ from the use of fossil fuels. There is no way that this objective can be enforced or even implemented with current technology. It should be remembered that in the UK 83% of the energy produced today is generated from fossil fuels.

All the major UK political parties are committed to achieving Net Zero by 2050 at the latest, so it would appear that there is nothing the electorate can presently do to challenge this unattainable objective. The full implications of this policy are largely outside the radar of the majority of the British public, since up to now most of the steps taken to implement this target have been relatively painless. For example, a significant amount of our manufacturing base has been outsourced to China, and the extra cost of renewables has been clandestinely concealed within energy bills.

The Conservative government has recently attracted much odium from the climate fanatics for delaying the phasing out of petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035. In reality this move is unlikely to make much difference, as the government has retained the financial penalties against manufacturers that fail to produce the predetermined sales quotas for electric cars and also for heat pumps. As the percentage quota rises year by year then either manufactures will face prohibitive fines and go out of business, or they will have to exponentially increase the costs of gas boilers and petrol and diesel cars to keep within the quotas, making them unaffordable to consumers. These fines will begin in 2024 and both the quota and fines will increase annually.

Let us assume that these fines and quotas do succeed in encouraging purchasers to switch to heat pumps and electric cars, and that there is no outcry from consumers forced to accept their second best choice, admittedly an unlikely scenario. In this situation the demand for electricity will continue to increase year by year until 2035, by which time pressure on the national grid will be substantially higher. But to meet the Net Zero target renewables during this period will need to significantly replace fossil fuels in the generation of electricity. Moreover, several nuclear power stations currently in operation will become life expired and have to be decommissioned. Currently there is only one nuclear power station being constructed, and another being planned for completion by 2035. The only reliable form of renewable energy is tidal power for which currently little work is being done.

In Britain there was recently a cold spell of about ten days when daytime temperatures were only slightly above freezing. At the same time there was virtually no wind. The daily statistics showed that roughly 65% of electricity was being generated by fossil fuels and only about 3% by the unreliable renewable sources of wind and solar combined. Although there were no power cuts the national grid was working close to the limit.

The inescapable conclusion is that before very long something must give. Either there will be continuing power cuts, or there will be rebellion by consumers unwilling to be forced to abandon their gas boilers and petrol and diesel cars for the unwanted and expensive Net Zero alternatives. The advocates of the Net Zero madness will then be confronted with reality.

Blast from the past 3 – BBC in the sewer

Russell Brand, a ‘comedian’ as some are describing him, was one of the two BBC presenters who, in 2008, left an obscene message on the voicemail of the Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs. This prompted the predecessor blog to this to condemn the BBC for facilitating this kind of degrading behaviour in the following terms.

“Nothing exemplifies the deterioration of our society more than the transformation of the BBC from a highly respected British institution into its current position as national cheerleader for political correctness spiced with large helpings of chav degeneracy. An example of the latter is the self indulgent behaviour of two of its ludicrously overpaid presenters who left an obscene message on the voicemail of the Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs. A clearly half witted senior manager approved this material as suitable for broadcasting. Fortunately, the manager and one of the presenters have resigned, and the other presenter suspended for three months, without pay. Over 30,000 members of the public complained to the BBC about this tasteless prank.

The reason that this material could be broadcast is because the BBC now has an absolute contempt for what until recently the overwhelming majority of viewers considered were civilised values and good taste. The BBC has been in the vanguard of undermining such values and replacing them with a diet of crude and uncouth trash under the delusional belief that it is progressive and cutting edge. In reality it is invariably puerile and embarrassing, and needless to say completely unfunny, unlike the many excellent sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers, which the BBC once produced with dependable regularity. One interesting fact which emerged from this episode was that most people over 30 found this broadcast objectionable, whereas those under 30 were puzzled what all the fuss was about. However, younger people eventually mature, and then see this kind of rubbish for what it really is".

Brand was the presenter who resigned after the above prank. He has been in the headlines for the past few days, accused of a number of sex offences, which the ‘comedian’ denies. The BBC is now trying to distant itself from this degenerate loudmouth, claiming that times have changed and that such puerile behaviour would no longer be tolerated. Since 2008 this blog has learnt quite a bit more about Brand than was known at the time. For example, that he was employed by Channel 4 as a presenter of the Big Brother programme and was a high profile presenter for BBC Radio 2.

Some of Brand’s ‘comedy’ routine was shown in the recent Channel 4 Dispatches programme. It confirms that Brand is both uncouth in manner and licentious in behaviour. He was employed by both the BBC and Channel 4 to attract a youth audience with his supposedly ‘edgy’ approach. To some extent this strategy appears to have been successful as the vast majority of his TV studio audience seem to be under thirty. What is disturbing is that about half the audience were female, and they found his crude and debased attempts at humour to be just as hilarious as the men did. So we have a degenerate ‘comedian’ performing before an equally degenerate audience, hypocritically aided and abetted by two broadcasting companies that can be relied upon to proclaim their own fake moral superiority at every opportunity.

It is of course not a crime to be degenerate, but sexual behaviour can be. Brand maintains that he has never committed any illegal acts during his promiscuous sexual escapades, which he maintains were always consensual. The Channel 4 Dispatches programme followed the same playbook as the earlier ITV Exposure programme about Jimmy Savile which is summarised here http://bit.ly/2dybGYs All the accusers are anonymous, their faces are never shown and their comments are voiced over. However, the Brand programme goes into far more detail and its professionalism exposes more clearly the amateurish fabrications that were the basis of the Savile programme.

Brand faced five accusers. Two of the most serious accusations occurred during his time in the USA. The first, Nadia, claimed that Brand locked the bedroom door, forcing himself upon her and then raping her as she was unable to escape. To her credit she went straight away to a rape treatment centre, who notified the police, but in the event Nadia decided not to make a complaint.

A second complainant, Phoebe, had a similar experience of being trapped in a bedroom with Brand forcing himself upon her. She started screaming and managed to make her escape. Her screams were heard by work colleagues outside who had just arrived for a meeting. So in both cases there was independent contemporaneous corroboration which adds to credibility of both accusers. However, it should be noted that both women were in a sexual relationship with Brand when these alleged attacks took place.

The three remaining accusations all took place in the UK. The first, Alice was a 16 year old schoolgirl who claimed to have had a three month relationship with Brand. She provides some examples of Brand’s insensitive behaviour and claims that she was ‘groomed’ by him and accuses him of ‘controlling’ behaviour. However, in a subsequent BBC radio interview she admitted that she repeatedly found ways of evading her mother’s prohibition on contacting and meeting Brand.

Another accuser, Rachel, a runner for a TV programme, was pursued by Brand and claimed to have been shocked by some of his behaviour. Nevertheless, she soon entered into a sexual relationship with him. Another crew member claimed that Brand asked her to approach attractive young females in the audience for their telephone numbers. Afterwards some claimed that they had been in tears after ‘being treated poorly’, by Brand.

These UK claims all seem to come within the reliable catch all term of ‘inappropriate’ behaviour, namely that which falls short of being criminal. It should be noted that because of Brand’s self proclaimed highly promiscuous behaviour, there must have been hundreds of women who willingly accepted Brand’s arrogant advances without being traumatised by the experience.

Like virtually all national comedians in recent decades Brand incorporated the mandatory full range of left wing nostrums in his act. This would have provided him with protection and cover to carry out his predatory and debased lifestyle, since the politically correct establishment does not openly condemn its own kind. However, in recent years he has adopted some less acceptable viewpoints, for example, supporting an ‘anti-vaxxer’ position associated with the ‘far right’, that was considered a betrayal by his former woke sponsors. Some claim that this change of outlook prompted the moves to expose him, with the result that he was no longer able to rely on their protection.

On the available evidence it appears unlikely that Brand will be charged with any offence unless new allegations emerge. It is disturbing that a person of such debased behaviour and manner has attracted such a vast number of followers on social media. On the other hand it is distasteful to see a phoney self righteous collection of mainstream media outlets combining together as a pack to destroy a celebrity on nothing more than a relatively small number of anonymous accusations.

Net Zero under attack

Following the recent Uxbridge by election the Government’s target for net zero has come under attack from some Tory backbenchers and right of centre media outlets. The failure of Labour to win the seat has been attributed to opposition to the extension of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) that will shortly impact the constituency.

Although the justification for the ULEZ extension is to improve air quality and not for ‘climate change’ reasons, this measure follows the same top down elite agenda pursued by the climate alarmists. The true motivation for the ULEZ extension is almost certainly income generation, as improvements in air quality will occur as a matter of course with the phasing out of older more polluting vehicles.

Up to the present time the measures required in the drive towards net zero have been relatively painless. A sizeable chunk of British industry has been outsourced to China thus significantly reducing our CO2 emissions, and reliable coal fired power stations have been replaced by unreliable wind and solar power, the increased costs of which have largely been hidden by being absorbed by stealth within fuel bills. Since, so far, there have been no major power cuts, the public remains largely unperturbed by these changes.

However, if progress towards the net zero target is to be achieved measures that will have a more direct impact on the public will now need to be introduced. Two of the more controversial are the replacement of petrol and diesel cars by electric cars, and the replacement of gas boilers by heat pumps. Up until now individuals have been able to decide for themselves what kind of car or domestic heating system to purchase, as might be expected in a free society. But henceforth they will be denied the right to make this choice as the supply of gas boilers and diesel and petrol cars are phased out.

At the last general election all the major parties supported the aim of the net zero. A recent opinion poll revealed that 73% of the public back the net zero target. However, opinion polls also show that support for net zero drops significantly when the costs to individuals are pointed out. Electric cars are still appreciably more expensive and heat pumps are almost four times the cost of gas boilers. Moreover, electric cars have problems regarding the limited range they can travel before needing to be recharged, and for many charging electric cars through the domestic power supply is impractical. Also, heat pumps are considered to be less effective in heating homes although they are generally cheaper to run.

It should be remembered that there is absolutely no need for these measures. The climate change hoax is based on nothing more than dodgy computer projections and predictions, and alarmist theories about the consequences of a slightly warmer planet. It is absurdly suggested that we will reach a ‘tipping point’ if global temperatures reach more than 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial level. Since about 1.1 degrees of this rise has already been reached it is nonsensical to claim that an extra 0.5 degrees will have the catastrophic consequences being claimed. In any case the pre-industrial baseline starts at the end of the ‘little ice age’, when there were frost fairs on the Thames, the worst storm in British history and poor harvests due to prolonged bad weather. Climate alarmism is not based on ‘the science’ but is politically driven with the same anti-capitalist objectives of the Occupy movement of a decade ago.

There have been calls for a referendum on the net zero objective. However, the time for this is not now but later when the policies have started to have a real impact on the public. There are already calls for still further restrictions, such as severe controls over the number of flights that can be made, or curbs on the production of meat and dairy products, or control over spending habits through a carbon allowance for each person. When the consequences of all these restrictions have come into effect then that will be the time to call a referendum to end the madness of net zero. But before then it is hoped that, with increased agitation on the backbenches, the Conservative Party might come to its senses and declare an end to supporting the net zero agenda.

Time to proscribe the SNP

The Scottish National Party (SNP) has been in the news in recent weeks for all the wrong reasons. We will have to wait for the completion of the police investigation to discover what has happened to the missing money that appears not to have been accounted for. So now is a good time to explore whether the SNP is a subversive organisation undermining the cohesion of the British nation sufficient to warrant its proscription.

The big problem raised by the continuation of the SNP is that it is at heart a one issue party whose sole objective is to deliver Scottish independence. Thus it follows that it can implement the most extreme policies and still attract the support of a sizeable chunk of the Scottish electorate who support independence.

Examples of this are the so called ‘transgender’ legislation which allows anyone over 16 years old to self identify as belonging to a ‘gender’ different to the sex into which they were born. This legislation has been blocked by the Westminster government. More recently the SNP has declared its intention to introduce juryless trials for men charged with rape, with the objective of raising the conviction rate. It should be remembered that Scotland is still an integral part of the United Kingdom. Thus the introduction of unjust and extremist laws by the SNP affects the reputation of the whole country, thus raising issues which it would be ill-advised to overlook.

The problem of the SNP has been compounded by the devolution system introduced by the Blair administration which created a Scottish assembly in 1999, with the power to frame legislation outside the control of the Westminster parliament. The hope was that this would lead to an indefinite Labour Party dominance in Scotland, given the then large majority of Scottish Labour MPs which had been in place for several decades. This strategy backfired badly when the SNP successfully hijacked the Scottish electoral system to install themselves as a permanent government, free to implement any legislation they pleased, however extreme.

So, two measures need to be taken to rectify this state of affairs. Firstly, to abolish the Scottish assembly, and secondly to prohibit the SNP from standing in Westminster and local elections. This would undoubtedly be controversial, but it would be far better than to allow the current arrangements to continue indefinitely. The three major parties support the union with Scotland, so they should have no objection in principle to measures that would strengthen the union.

The proscription of separatist political parties should not be confined to Scotland. For example, Plaid Cymru and the English National Party should also be proscribed on the same grounds, as should any political party advocating separation. It is not necessary to proscribe membership of these parties as was done with the IRA; it would be sufficient to just bar them from standing in elections, both national and local. They would still be free to argue the case for independence through the media and other means.

Given that there would be no longer any democratic platform to promote independence during elections it will be necessary to provide a vehicle to allow the support for separation to be tested periodically. This should be done through referenda. There was a forty year gap between the first and second referendums on membership of the European Union. It would therefore be appropriate for Scottish and Welsh referendums to be held on the same time scale. Thus the next referendum for Scotland would be held in 2054 and that for Wales about 2038. This provision would need to be included in any legislation abolishing the Scottish and Welsh assemblies and barring separatist parties standing in national and local elections.

These sensible and necessary reforms will allow the electorates in Scotland and Wales to determine the outcome of elections on the arguments and policies put forward by the political parties rather than being hijacked by separatist agitators as is the case today.

Boris stitch up

Boris Johnson’s detractors must be salivating with joy at the conclusions of the House of Commons Privileges Committee report into the ‘Partygate’ affair. It should be remembered that this was a wholly confected campaign promoted by the BBC and opposition parties to topple Boris when he was prime minister as outlined in this previous blog. https://bit.ly/3NDBXn9

The authors of the report have set out in great detail the background information about the various ‘parties’ about which Boris allegedly misled Parliament. So, although the facts have been accurately outlined, the conclusions reached are a disgrace. Boris was quite right to denounce the committee as a ‘kangaroo court’ engaged in a ‘witch hunt’ determined to find him guilty. As Jacob Rees-Mogg observed they ‘quite clearly made a deliberate attempt to take the most unfavourable interpretation of Mr Johnson’s activities’. Clearly the ninety days suspension is vindictive and the withdrawal of the parliamentary pass is petty.

The facts are that Boris received a single fixed penalty notice, bizarrely for accepting a birthday cake in his workplace. It is incomprehensible why he did not appeal against this grotesque travesty of justice. All the other fixed penalty notices relating to 10 Downing Street were handed out to civil servants. It is worth pointing out that Boris Johnson was not responsible for the management of No.10 or the supervising of staff compliance with the covid regulations. This work was delegated to civil servant middle managers. Boris Johnson’s role as prime minister was to focus on important national and international affairs, not to meddle in the running of the Downing Street workplace. So he would have no idea whether or not Downing Street staff were complying with the covid regulations.

So before answering questions in Parliament about this matter he would first have had to ask his private office civil servants to investigate and provide him with a form of words he could convey to his parliamentary colleagues. This is standard practice when ministers answer questions in Parliament. So Boris Johnson was entirely dependent on his private office staff providing him with accurate and honest information. They informed him that ‘the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times’. So this form of words, or slight variations on it, was how Boris answered the questions relating to ‘Partygate’ in Parliament. There was no intention to mislead Parliament, certainly nor ‘deliberately or ‘recklessly’. He was merely providing the answer given to him by civil servants upon whom he was reliant for establishing the true facts, about which he would be largely unaware.

The committee’s conclusion that Boris Johnson, because he was working in the building, must have been aware that covid regulations were not being followed, is an unwarranted exercise in mind reading, and not one based on evidence. Boris Johnson’s big mistake was to answer the question about the ‘parties’ himself. What he should have done, for example at PM questions, would be to say that a Cabinet Office minister would shortly be issuing a statement on this subject. Such a minister would then have said exactly the same as what Boris said, and that would have been the end of the matter. This shows that the committee’s objective was not to investigate the truth about ‘Partygate’ but rather to bring down Boris by means of a wholly prejudicial report.

The heterosexual menace

Since the 1970s, encouraged by feminism, the liberal political establishment has been pursuing a covert campaign to demonise male heterosexuality. This has been gradualist and incremental, the objective being, through a relentless repetition of negative associations, to fix in the public mind that male heterosexual behaviour is by its very nature intrinsically predatory. Thus, it is argued, measures need to be taken for it to be curbed. The mindset and strategy of this agenda is outlined below.

This agenda has reached its current apogee with the decision of the Marxist inspired EU puppet regime in Scotland to carry out a pilot scheme to replace jury trials for rape with a single judge. So it is worth considering the background as to how such a controversial proposal has been allowed to enter the political mainstream. It would also be useful to examine whether there is any linkage between the gradualist attack on male heterosexual behaviour and increasing liberal political support for the homosexual lifestyle.

As outlined in this blogpost http://bit.ly/2woxAZd society, at the time when male homosexual activities were legalised, was openly hostile to what were widely regarded as clearly deviant sexual practices. MPs supporting decriminalisation were mainly concerned about the threat faced by homosexuals from blackmailers, and none of them endorsed homosexual activity as being in any way normal or acceptable. They would have considered it inconceivable that society would ever want to ‘celebrate’ homosexual behaviour as a matter of ‘pride’. So, at that time, it would have been impossible to mount a direct attack on male heterosexuality, but as support for the homosexual cause increased it had the insidious effect of undermining commonly practiced aspects of male heterosexual behaviour.

Until the rise in feminism the political left opposed harsh sentences for criminal offenders. They took the view that the disadvantaged background of many offenders played, at least in part, an explanation as to why they had turned to crime. Thus the left generally supported lenient sentences, in contrast to the right who wanted tougher sentences. This was also a time of increasing sexual liberation and the left took a tolerant and indulgent attitude towards sexual activity in general.

So it came as some surprise that left wing feminists started to demand action to curb the greater availability of pornography. By today’s standards this was less hard core and more restrictive than what is available today through the internet. Opposition to pornography had previously been a concern of the right, and the battle against it was one of the main planks of Mary Whitehouse’s crusade against permissiveness. Feminists argued that pornography 'objectified' women, encouraging the assumption that they were little more than the sexual playthings of men. They feared that exposure to pornography fostered an image of women that depicts them as mere 'sex objects' and that this puts them at greater risk from rape and sexual assault.

Campaigns by militant feminists became more vocal and extreme, seeking bans on anything they defined as pornographic, some going so far as branding all men as rapists. The suspicion arose that a militant lesbian man-hating nucleus within the feminist movement had a hugely disproportionate influence on feminist thinking. What is not in doubt is the manner in which obeisance to the feminist credo became a core value of the liberal political class.

Following the decriminalisation of homosexual relations between adult males over 21 it came as an unwelcome surprise to many, when homosexuals, or 'gays' as they now chose to describe themselves, quickly started to openly parade what many considered to be a deviant lifestyle and to claim further rights and 'equality'. Events moved at such a pace that that by the late 1970s appeasing the gay lobby became one of the main planks of the politically correct agenda. 'Gay Pride' marches, gay council committees and gay propaganda in schools were all introduced with relatively little resistance.

Feminists are aware that they form only a very small proportion of women, and many lament this fact. But because they are backed by the liberal establishment they have an influence far exceeding their numerical strength. One striking feature running through feminist thinking is the sense of insecurity such women feel about themselves. They seem to suffer form a collective persecution complex which they then blame on the 'patriarchal' society which supposedly oppresses them.

However, it would be a mistake to dismiss feminists concerns out of hand. Some make valid points about the behaviour of men, notably their predilection for aggression, belittling insults and even violence over relatively trivial issues, and their judging of women through the prism of their sexual appeal. It is to be hoped that this assessment does not cover the majority of men, but alas it is likely to include a sizeable minority. In this respect men do need to get their house in order and try to become more like true gentlemen, a concept that is in danger of becoming obsolete in our society's increasingly crude macho vision of masculinity. Women have to some extent themselves to blame by their poor choice of men. It is unfortunate that the more loutish men seem to have the least trouble in attracting women, too many of whom dismiss more considerate and sensitive men as wimps.

Over the past four decades or so we have moved from the criminalization of homosexuality to a position where the criticism of homosexuals can be deemed a 'hate' crime. The promotion of 'gay' rights has been a fundamental component of the cultural Marxist agenda to transform and subvert a once well ordered society.

One of the more enduring delusions subscribed to by many in society is that liberals are more understanding, open minded, progressive, caring, thoughtful, enlightened, sensitive and broad minded etc, than those nasty, reactionary, knuckle dragging right wingers. This belief is particularly strong amongst the younger generation yet to be mugged by reality. In practice liberals are totally opposed to any dissent from their orthodoxies and use many tried and tested methods to maintain control over society to achieve their ends. Sometimes they do it openly through legislation and regulation. This is at least an honest way of achieving their objectives but it does have one drawback in that it risks opponents repealing these measures in the event that they gain power. A much better method is to create a climate of hostility towards those they wish to marginalise or demonise.

One tactic used by feminists is to portray all men as potential sexual or violent predators. For some time now, since the early seventies, their main focus has been on exaggerating the numbers of rapes and domestic violence they have suffered at the hands of brutish males. Alas, some men do live up to this stereotype but the numbers are far smaller than the feminist agitators would have us believe. But in the past decade or so they have discovered a new stratagem which has much broader appeal than amongst the usual feminist/agitprop activists. This is to brand all men as possible paedophiles. By using this scare they can recruit a much wider support base embracing tabloid newspapers and the more neanderthal elements amongst the 'chav' population, which in this country is now a quite a sizeable category of persons.

Modern feminism has its roots in Marxist thinking and thus it has been uncritically accepted by the politically correct elite who control British institutions. Opposition has been minimal to this incremental agenda. Most men are cowed into silence and are reluctant to voice their concerns about what is going on. Only a relatively small minority of women are openly feminist and thus they are unrepresentative of the vast majority of women, most of whom take a common sense attitude towards the opposite sex. Nevertheless, because of the enormous influence wielded by feminists, their orthodoxies are regarded by the liberal establishment as near unchallengeable. Feminist distortions are repeated endlessly without serious examination or challenge, with the end result that the public are now beginning to accept them as truth. Men will need to find their voice if they are to avoid being branded as sex offenders in increasing numbers under this new puritan regime.

The decision in Scotland to abolish juries has a very clear aim. It is to increase the conviction rate of men charged with rape. Feminists have been concerned for some time that the conviction rate in rape cases has been significantly lower than for other offences. This is put down to juries believing so called ‘rape myths’. But the reality is that there is a wide gulf on what constitutes rape between the average member of the public and feminist agitators who peddle the ‘rape myths’ viewpoint.

The whole purpose of juries is that the criminal justice system should reflect the outlook of society generally, rather than being hijacked by a vocal influential minority in pursuit of an agenda. From the feminist perspective the problem with juries is that they cannot be manipulated. But this consideration does not apply to judges, who will come under enormous pressure to increase the number of convictions. Those failing to deliver this agenda will inevitably find themselves on the receiving end of feminist denunciation. Once the principle of juryless trials has been conceded there will be agitation to widen them to include all sexual offences, and for ‘crimes’ of political dissent known as ‘hate crimes’.

Keir Starmer’s transgender delusion

Labour leader Keir Starmer has recently been sounding off about the transgender issue. He has to strike a difficult balance between the views of most of the electorate, who consider this matter to be a load of nonsense, and his activist base, who are fanatical about extending the rights of the supposed ‘transgender community’.

It is impossible to square theses two viewpoints and in trying to do so Sir Keir has been tying himself in knots. Previously he was unable to define a woman, and in his more recent utterance he opines that 99.9% of women do not have a penis. He justified this absurdity by stating ‘there are some people who identify as a different gender to the one they are born with. That is why the Gender Recognition Act was passed to recognise that they need legal support and a framework, and most people don’t disagree with that’.

He is wrong on both counts. People who claim to be transgender have always enjoyed full legal rights. They have never been prohibited from claiming that that they are ‘a different gender to the one they are born with’ or for dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex. They have always been free to do so and the rest of society could choose whether or not to support or encourage them in this delusion. So there was no need for the state to step in on the grounds that they supposedly needed ‘legal support and a framework’.

What the Gender Recognition Act has done is to diminish the rights of the rest of society, who now risk being criminalised if they do not conform to the demands of the ‘transgender community’ and their hard left supporters. So, for example, a failure to address them in their preferred pronouns, or to assert that ‘trans women’ are not real women, can now be interpreted as a hate crime. As a consequence, this legislation allows a very small number of delusional freaks to intimidate the rest of society. Contrary to the views of Sir Keir, it is very unlikely that ‘most people don’t disagree’ with this dangerous development.