PLEASE send your letters (as short as you like) to info@conservativewoman.co.uk and mark them ‘Letter to the Editor’.
We need your name and a county address, e.g. Yorkshire or London. Letters may be shortened. There is no guarantee of publication.
Letter of the week
Dear Editor
Some thoughts on why Parliament has failed the people, and why many MPs are so ineffective.
Blair’s HR Act and the ECHR allowed global puppet masters to override, if not dictate, decisions made in Parliament.
His constitutional vandalism left the Judiciary unaccountable to Parliament while MPs abdicated control to the Blob, who are all too good at citing ‘international law’, which is no such thing.
Cameron, May and Johnson did nothing to repair the damage but kept selecting ‘yes men’ LibDems in the guise of Tory MPs. Even a 100-seat majority was not enough for them to take back control.
Having abdicated to the Blob, with a legal Net Zero, MPs can sit back and say, its law, even if it means poverty and, for some, an early death. They don’t need to scrutinise anything and can sit back while taking the King’s shillings.
Neither the Tories nor Labour are going to put things right. We need a tough leader with integrity, conviction and tenacity to repair the damage done, before we can resolve the underlying rot.
If we want the kind of Trumpian Executive Orders seen in the US, then we will probably need a codified constitution and a President.
Roger Arthur
Hollybank
As always, the UK are ten years late
Dear Editor
Not everyone likes what President Trump had to say at the press conference in the aftermath of the tragic air accident in Washington DC. I heard someone on the radio, just after he had blamed DEI for errors in the air traffic control system, say that ‘in the UK, that press conference would have plainly been “our thoughts are with the families, we’ll tell you what happened in ten years”’. It was hard to disagree.
Polly Vegas
London
Wins and solar farms leaving Britain powerless
Dear Editor
Last week, an article in the Daily Telegraph rightly highlighted the emerging gap between grid demand and generation capacity. It should be clear that grid scale batteries will not resolve the lack of power when solar and wind power is near zero for many days.
Indeed, if solar and wind farm capacity is trebled to around 100GW, the batteries might need to carry an average load of over 50GW for 10 hours or more on a cold winter’s day.
That equates to around 500TWh of battery capacity, at a cost of > £200 per kWh, equating to >£100 trillion (>30 x the national debt) and the batteries would need to be replaced every 10 to 15 years.
The batteries would have to be recharged to 500TWh overnight, mainly from gas turbines and nuclear power stations, but sadly, on many days, there wouldn’t be enough power generation to recharge the batteries in time for the next peak in demand.
Roger Arthur
Hollybank
Absolute liability is the only way
Dear Editor
The covid inquiry has spent time this week discussing the vaccine damage payment scheme, which currently costs more to investigate a case than the maximum compensation given, and that only after an arbitrary 60 per cent disability is inflicted. They argue that improvements are required.
The fact that the scheme is disastrously unfit for purpose is self-apparent, but improvement cannot solve the problem. It must be replaced by introducing ABSOLUTE liability of the manufacturers for the harm caused by their products.
In almost every area of life, for many decades, it has been the duty of manufacturers to ensure that their products are safe and fit for purpose. It is not for the injured party to have to prove that the product was not safe. After a plane crash, no sensible person would claim that some the passengers died as a result of pre-existing health conditions. Of course, this is a possibility, as a fit person may well be better able to survive the trauma. Absolute liability avoids this nightmare from filling the courts. By and large, it works well.
How can it be that pharmaceutical companies are able to avoid liability by carrying out limited, and perhaps inaccurate, testing of their own products, getting a stamp of approval from a regulator, and using that to indefinitely avoid liability, usually with the backing of governments?
If a vaccine causes harm, the manufactures must be liable and pay compensation without question. Bradford-Hill criteria have long been the standard to show causation. If they are met, they must be made to compensate. No ‘improved’ government-operated scheme will ever be suitable. Those suggesting improvements are nothing short of delusional. The injured party needs to be treated quickly and with respect. Lives have been destroyed, and livelihoods have been lost. Government schemes will always be long-winded, impersonal and add greatly to the suffering already taking place.
If we expect manufacturers to produce medical products that do not cause injury, it will only happen if the cost of failure far exceeds the profits generated from defective products. They exist to generate profit, not to look after public health, and everyone needs to accept that and only then decide if what they are taking is ‘safe and effective’. To correct the problem, the consequences of failure must be financial. Any legal costs must be borne by the manufactures for both parties; the law must change, not the payments scheme. In any event, all costs of the payment scheme must be borne exclusively by the vaccine manufacturers.
No doubt screams that it would not be worthwhile developing new products would be heard. If that were the case, surely this would be a better outcome: a new harmful product for which they sought further immunity from failure would not be possible. The cost of failure must be punitive. It focussed the mind for the motor industry; pharmaceuticals are far more critical.
Jim Tumilty
Bloody January again, despite what the usual suspects say
Dear Editor
By this stage of the month, the Met Office and MSM would be jumping the gun with an announcement, running dire warnings and claiming that ‘this month was the warmest on record.’ So far, it has been surprisingly quiet from the usual suspects, as January has been decidedly cool without having a major wintry spell. In Suffolk, day-time temperatures have been consistently below 8°C and overnight minima regularly dipping below freezing. In fact, the UK has experienced a range of winter weather, like frost, fog, strong wind, heavy rain and even bright, crisp days. It puts me in mind of the Flanders and Swan weather song: very much ‘bloody January again’.
James Dent
Suffolk
The carbon cost of Net Zero
Dear Editor
Those of a green persuasion are keen to demand that we change our lifestyles and buy electric vehicles and heat pumps and embrace wind turbines and solar panels. These ‘green’ initiatives are not as green as is claimed on the tin. All require fossil fuels to manufacture. There are the greenhouse gases created from shipping and from the mining of rare metals; the manufacture of steel and cement create more. How many years will it take to recover the millions of tons of greenhouse gases created in the manufacture of EVs, wind turbines and solar panels? Five years? Ten years, or more? Strange that politicians never asked this question before committing taxpayers to the horrific cost of Net Zero.
Clark Cross
Linlithgow
The most important lesson in childhood – trust in God
Dear Editor
Before his inauguration, President Trump was asked ‘what is your favourite quote in the Bible?’. I thought, ‘What a stupid question, move on,’ which is what he did, but later I thought, ‘no, I am wrong – it is a pretty good question actually.’ If someone asked me that, I would say first off ‘the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God’, which sort of sums it up. If I was allowed another, it would be ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’. Parents, grandparents and friends, take note: Jesus asked it; ordered it, in fact. Children are innocent, and while they are naturally happy, as they grow, they will have worries and fears, even in the best homes and schools. In the bad homes, they suffer fear and repression which is likely to stay with them for the rest of their lives. I suspect most alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals and mental health patients had sad or violent childhoods.
We adults cannot know what unhappiness children suffer because they are unlikely to express it, even to kind parents. Children can and do turn very naturally to God; indeed, it is natural for children to believe in God. God answers the prayers of children, much more so than he does grown-ups’ (in my experience), who anyway can probably sort it for themselves, by doing something or adjusting, accepting and growing in spiritual strength as they do so.
So, parents, teachers, everyone remember, unfashionable and reactionary as you may think it is, tell children about our Christian God who will be there to help them in torments and fears and will give them comfort, until they are old enough to work things through for themselves. It is the most important thing you can do for them in their lives.
Rebecca
Power cut? No problem for a tank of diesel
Dear Editor
I had just finished my meal at the motorway service station, Tebay North on the M6 as it happens, when there was a power cut. As I was leaving, a man complained to me that he had just put his car on to charge and would have to wait for the power to come back. Not a problem I faced; my diesel car took me down to Liverpool and back home to Scotland on one tank. Our unreliable electricity supply is one more reason why people are shunning electric cars.
Otto Inglis
Fife
A disparate victim complex, over thirty years in the making
Dear Editor
Over thirty years ago, I was attacked with a knife by an Asian student. I was told, ‘We don’t report these incidents, we leave it to their community to deal with’. The same term, a white student produced a knife and was promptly expelled and reported to relevant authorities. Why the disparate attitudes? The professional and political class have decided that anyone even remotely connected to the third world (i.e. Meghan Markle) is a victim and oppressed by the white first world. This is why no one wanted to deal with the grooming gangs and explains the refusal to deal with terrorism that kills or maims, and yet they are over-active in punishing any possible right-wingers like Peter Lynch. The fact that this class is actively seeking their own destruction is their tragedy; that they are taking us down with them is ours.
Kathleen Carr
Sheffield
Cash is king – off with its head, says Emma Reynolds
Dear Editor
It is so disappointing that the Treasury has not requested that all businesses must accept cash in the UK, as they always used to, as it is so discriminatory. So many elderly people cannot use digital means, or if they have dementia, cannot remember PIN numbers and so on, and many people are now budgeting with cash.
Countries like Sweden have mandated that businesses must accept cash several years ago, in order to help the most vulnerable in their society and to have a national security emergency contingency available in the event of a digital takeover by a hostile nation. In 2023, we (the UK) also introduced legislation to protect access to cash for those who need it: the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (FSMA 2023). Now, Economic Secretary Emma Reynolds has gone back on that commitment. During an appearance before MPs on the Treasury Committee, she said, in a blow to millions of cash users, that the Government will not force businesses to accept cash payments, despite growing concerns over the exclusion of vulnerable people.
Mrs Reynolds has had an interesting career. Following her departure from Parliament in 2019, she was appointed as Managing Director of Public Affairs, Policy & Research at TheCityUK, a special interest group lobbying the UK Government on behalf of the financial sector: ‘while there, Reynolds lobbied the UK government to avoid placing China in the strictest category of rules for the registering foreign influence, but denied representing Chinese businesses or the Chinese government’ – that’s according to Wikipedia.
One wonders whether she is the best person to decide on this matter.
Valerie Wadell
Dear Editor,
Further to John Hale’s excellent article, we should recall that some years ago the ‘Labour’ Party rebranded itself as ‘New Labour’. A rebrand is required yet again only this time it should be called the ‘New Luddites’. The party has dedicated itself to returning the country to the Middle Ages. Its Net Zero agenda is surely only going to deliver ridiculously high fuel prices accompanied by blackouts. With energy prices already three times higher than in America (before ‘drill baby, drill’ delivers its results) the few remaining sectors of industry are collapsing against the impossible odds.
Accompanying this stupidity, our so called government operates behind a curtain of fiction using deception, deceit, half truths and lies and a seemingly single minded obsession with all things Islam. Importing millions of people, doomed to be economically idle while enjoying the full range of benefits in return for preferential treatment by the government, is not any sort of long term plan, except a terrifying one. Why do the party leadership imagine that, when the numbers reach a tipping point, these people will remain loyal to the party and not be recruited for an Islamic party?
M G Colley,
Cambridgeshire
