We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
For a few hours today the lead story on the front pages of both the Guardian and the Telegraph was about the untimely demise of a plant. The Sycamore Gap Tree was a mildly famous old tree next to Hadrian’s Wall. I don’t think I ever consciously saw it in person, but I had heard of it. The tree’s Wikipedia article – it has its own Wikipedia article – says,
The tree was felled in the early morning of 28 September 2023 in what Northumbria Police described as “an act of vandalism”. The felling of the tree led to an outpouring of anger and sadness.
That last sentence is certainly true. It was one of those news stories that is of little consequence by the normal measures of the importance of news stories but which packed a surprising punch emotionally. I’d heard of that tree. It had a node in my brain, not a big node but one in a nice area near to the ones dealing with history and nature and charming old guidebooks, and now some scumbags had cut it down, apparently for the fun of making me and people like me feel bad. I was glad when said scumbags were arrested and gladder still when earlier today they were both found guilty of criminal damage and told to expect custodial sentences. I was even a little bit glad to read that both men had been remanded in custody prior to sentencing for their own protection.
Am I justified in thinking that the two men who cut down this particular tree deserve more serious punishment than other people who cut down trees that do not belong to them in order to steal the wood or something? I would not go quite so far as the readers of the Telegraph, who would be quite happy to use the wood to build a gallows and recover the costs by selling commemorative slices, but I am definitely in a vengeful mood.
Why? It was not my tree, except in the feeble sense that it belonged to the National Trust, of which I am member. My suffering at its demise was not zero but was not great either. It didn’t ruin my life. It didn’t even ruin my morning. Presumably the same goes for all the other people who felt bad reading about the vandalism in the paper or hearing about it on the news. They suffered, but not greatly. The tree didn’t suffer. All agree that the criminal damage was a straightforward crime and should be punished, but why do so many people, including me, feel that this was a more serious crime than most instances of criminal damage because it upset people? The post below treats the idea of blasphemy laws and a so-called right to be shielded from offensive speech with a scorn that I fully share. I have an uneasy feeling that I am coming close to setting up an offence of tree blasphemy.
In Britain, in 2025, whether or not you should be able to criticise a religion, mock its practices, burn its texts, is an alarmingly live issue. And when I say ‘a religion’, you know which one I’m talking about. This debate has lit up again this week, following the charges brought against Hamit Coskun for burning a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London in February. His one-man protest against the Islamist turn of Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been chalked up as a religiously motivated public-order offence, drawing the condemnation of shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick and causing an X feud between two MPs. Rupert Lowe – the member for the Very Online right – condemned our backdoor blasphemy laws, while Adnan Hussain – one of the so-called Gaza independents who rode a wave of sectarian, anti-Israel bile into parliament at the last General Election – accused Lowe of singling out Muslims under the guise of freedom of speech.
– Tom Slater
Before it’s possible to suggest a solution to a problem, it’s necessary to grasp the root cause of the problem itself. A sort of Reverse Chesterton’s Fence exercise.
So, what has gone wrong? As we never tire of repeating it’s the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and successors. That is, for the past 78 years we’ve had that coherent national plan. With a long term vision. Run by the Rolls Royce minds of the Men in Whitehall who know best. Which is how we’ve ended up with the output we’ve got, something that would disgrace a Trabant factory.
As it is national control of planning – the TCPA really does define who may build what where, is the nationalisation of land use – that is the problem then the solution is to get rid of what caused the problem. Blow up the TCPA, proper blow up – kablooie.
– Tim Worstall
After a recount, the Reform Party were declared the winners of the Runcorn and Helsby by-election by six votes. The first time they counted, Reform’s margin of victory was four votes.
Assuming the second result is accurate, the first result was off by two. Not bad considering 32,740 votes were cast.
Not a bad result for Reform, either. Sarah Pochin is Runcorn’s first MP from any party other than Labour in 52 years. If that result had come from the bowels of a voting machine many Labour supporters would have distrusted it. Because the count and the recount took place under the eyes of multiple observers – courtesy of the Sun live-streaming it, you can watch all three hours and twenty one minutes of the process here if you want to – few now will.
The Press Gazette reports:
Essex Police loses accuracy complaint versus Telegraph over Allison Pearson questioning
Essex Police has had a complaint against The Telegraph rejected by IPSO following a visit to columnist Allison Pearson by two uniformed officers on Remembrance Sunday.
Pearson was visited by police in November 2024, apparently to discuss a potentially inflammatory post on X by the comment writer.
(The tweet in question criticised two-tier policing of Pro-Palestine marches.)
Pearson said she was accused of a “non-crime hate incident” by police. The Telegraph also reported that she was questioned over an “alleged hate crime”.
Essex Police said Pearson was wrong to claim officers described the matter as a “non-crime hate incident” and provided a transcript of video taken filmed by officers at the time. IPSO rejected the complaints, saying the Telegraph had taken sufficient care to establish the facts ahead of publication.
Why does it matter whether it was or was not a “non-crime hate incident”? Because Essex Police tried to claim that because Pearson was – ludicrously – being investigated for an actual crime (someone had complained that the tweet had incited racial hatred), that meant that the Telegraph could not report on their own columnist having the rozzers turn up unannounced at her door on Remembrance Sunday.
Rejecting the complaint, IPSO said: “While the complainant had said that it had not been given sufficient time to respond to this email, it had responded within four hours, with both a for-publication comment and a not-for-publication note. Neither the comment nor the background note responded to the claim that the writer had been told that she had been ‘told she had been reported for a non crime hate incident’. While both pieces of correspondence made clear that the police were investigating the matter as a potential criminal offence, the position regarding what the writer had been told during the visit had not been disputed or corrected.”
IPSO added: ” The complainant had said that the articles should not have been published, as the publication was not aware of the full circumstances of the case, and had attempted to dissuade the newspaper from publishing the articles under complaint. The committee noted that, on occasion, the press will report on ongoing investigations, and the code does not forbid it from doing so. It further noted the role that the press plays in reporting on the criminal justice system, and that – provided that the code is not breached – there is no bar on the media reporting on ongoing and developing cases, and doing so can serve the public interest, for example by holding institutions to account, or by reporting on matters of ongoing public debate.”
The actual argument being made is that British actors, tax breaks, directors, scriptwriters, lovely Cotswold villages (and in the case of Bridgerton, the street outside my flat) are just such wonderful places to film, film with, that prices are rising. Therefore we’ve got to subsidise all this.
The only reason we listen to fuckwits like this is because they’re pretty. Now, honestly, hands up. Who has ever known a pretty bird, handsome man, who can actually think? Even, actually has the base data to be able to think with?
No, no, it’s not that the leavening of IQ and looks equals out over genes. Quite the opposite. Dullards in the sense of actual cretins and morons tend not to look good either. But the good looking have never had to think now, have they? So, they don’t.
– Tim Worstall
“My message to the Zionist Jews: We are going to take our land back, we love death for Allah’s sake the same way you love life. We shall burn you as Hitler did, but this time we won’t have a single one of you left.”
– regular BBC contributor Samer Elzaenen.
A report in the Telegraph says,
A BBC spokesman said: “International journalists including the BBC are not allowed access into Gaza so we hear from a range of eyewitness accounts from the strip. These are not BBC members of staff or part of the BBC’s reporting team. We were not aware of the individuals’ social media activity prior to hearing from them on air.
Er, why not? Given that the Telegraph article says that he made more than thirty posts on social media over the last decade that celebrated Palestinians killing Israeli civilians, including one post where he delightedly said that two murdered boys aged six and eight would “soon go to hell”, was it really beyond the power of the Arabic service of one of the biggest media organisations on Earth to do a simple internet search for his name? If the task of excluding self-identified Palestinian Nazis from giving regular commentary under the BBC name is too difficult for BBC Arabic, then BBC Arabic is a waste of public money. I hope that is the case, because the other possibility is that the BBC’s Arabic-speaking staff knew of Mr Elzaenen’s wish to exterminate the Jews but kept inviting him back because they want to do the same themselves. It’s not a universal opinion among Palestinians, but it’s not uncommon either.
A song from the late 90s by Len. But this request (not to) was in vain, the UK government has announced £50,000,000 of funding to ‘dim the Sun’, in a bid to counter climate change, reports the Manchester Evening News, on the back of a paywalled report in the Daily Telegraph.
Scientists are planning on ‘dimming the Sun’ in a bid to curb global warming. The UK government is set to announce funding of up to £50m of funding for Sun-dimming experiments in the coming weeks, the Telegraph reports.
Does no one remember our wise Danish King Canute? He showed, over 1,000 years ago, that the State is all but powerless in the face of Nature. Of course not. Here is more on the plans.
It comes as the National Environment Research Council (NERC) announced on April 3 that it will invest £10 million of new funding to study these solar radiation management schemes (SRM).
According to Professor Mark Symes, the programme director for the Government’s advanced research and invention funding agency, known as Aria, there would be “small controlled outdoor experiments on particular approaches”. These experiments could include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere or brightening clouds to reflect sunlight.
Crucially, there is an acronym ‘SRM’, so this is one of those funding streams that will take on a monstrous life of its own. One might think that the Manchester Evening News (think Seattle but without the glamour) might have something to say seeing as it is a notoriously rainy city, but not a peep about the absurdity of it. Nor has there been any comment on the impact on solar energy generation, which provides ‘carbon neutral’ energy (but what about the deuterium lost in solar energy production?).
The UK government seeks to control the Sun, and how much it shines on you. Chairman Mao and the four pests comes to mind.
To be fair, these proposals have generated plenty of online ridicule, but that won’t stop it. That the UK is circling the drain is perhaps better shown by this Icarian hubris than anything else.
And of course, once you accept their premises, you are only arguing about tactics and strategy, not the ends.
We live in an age when politics trumps science, and the choice of verb is deliberate. Remember “Scientists Debunk Lab Accident Theory Of Pandemic Emergence”? How about “Social justice matters more than social distance”? During the Covid-19 pandemic, the frequency of scientists and doctors issuing passionate debunkings of any vaguely scientific idea that Donald Trump happened to mention that day, only to issue equally passionate rebunkings the minute the wind changed, became so great that even the New York Times winced.
Science has always been politicised, but it was not always this bad. Cast your mind back to the turn of the century – 1998 to be precise. Antivax sentiment was not completely unknown but in general vaccines were seen by almost everyone as the means by which smallpox, diptheria and polio had been banished to the history books. I still see them this way. Here is a graph taken from the website of the Office for National Statistics of life expectancy at birth in the UK from 1841 to 2011. As the accompanying article says, the fairly steep rise in the second half of the time period was probably due to health improvements in the older population, but the ASTOUNDINGLY steep rise between 1890 and 1950 was probably due to health improvements in the younger population. Take a bow, childhood immunisation. We have forgotten how lucky we are to have been born in the age of the vaccine.
In 1998 something happened that caused trust in vaccines to slip. The following is an extract from the Wikipedia page for Dr Richard Horton, who was then and is now the editor of The Lancet, probably the world’s pre-eminent medical journal:
“On 28 February 1998 Horton published a controversial paper by Andrew Wakefield and 12 co-authors with the title “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” suggesting that vaccines could cause autism. The publication of the paper set off a sharp decline in vaccinations in Europe and America and in subsequent years globally.”
I want to make clear that there was nothing wrong in the Lancet publishing Wakefield’s paper. How else is science meant to advance, other than by putting forward hypotheses and inviting all comers to replicate them or refute them? The wrong lay in sticking to this particular hypothesis long after it had been disproved. Horton only retracted Wakefield’s paper in February 2010, after Wakefield had been struck off the register of the General Medical Council for financial and medical misconduct.
There have been at least two switches in the political coding of Wakefield’s theory since it came out. Stereotyping madly, in the first few years after 1998 antivax sentiment was seen as a belief held by low-status Christian hicks in the American South. From about 2005 onwards antivax views also became popular among West and East Coast hippies, practitioners of alternative medicine and the like, most of whom were left wing, and a good deal more media savvy than the former group. Dr Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet who published and defended Wakefield, is, without exaggeration, a Marxist. Back in 2006, I posted about his view that, “As this axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conflict, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease.”
One of the many evils of the scientific and medical censorship practised during the Covid-19 pandemic is that people whose attitudes ranged from belief in David Icke’s shape-shifting lizards to having doubts about specific Covid-19 vaccines that might be right, wrong, or a bit of both, but which are certainly reasonable, were all lumped together under the heading of “vaccine denialists” and condemned en masse. That meant that people who might have been open to argument were never argued with. Persuasion in either direction cannot happen if people cannot discuss a subject. Science cannot happen if people cannot discuss a subject. I remember commenting to this effect to the Times in late 2021. My comment lasted about five minutes before being deleted.
It is 27 years since 1998, 15 years since 2010, and five years since the start of the pandemic. Time for another burst of news stories about autism and vaccines. The script is much the same but many of the actors have swapped roles.
“RFK’s statements prove autistic people and their families everywhere should fear Trump and his allies”, writes John Harris in the Guardian’s Sunday sister, the Observer. The initials “RFK” refer to Robert F. Kennedy Junior, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. There is a video of the speech made by Kennedy on April 16th to which Mr Harris is objecting here and I found a transcript of it here.
→ Continue reading: Two different types of irrationality over autism
Apple is doing the public a service in challenging the government on this important matter of principle. Encryption enables more than just ‘secure’ communication – it ensures freedom from government snooping, too. That’s why privacy and freedom of expression have long been considered mutually reinforcing rights. Encryption protects not only personal data, but also the ability of journalists and human-rights activists to operate without fear of surveillance or reprisals. Compelling companies to pre-emptively weaken those protections risks chilling users’ ability to communicate freely, share sensitive information or challenge the powers-that-be.
– Freddie Attenborough
LOL Remember this?
Like most people, I haven’t tuned in to Have I Got News For You for years. But when I heard of a staggering omission in last Friday night’s edition, I just had to see it – or, rather, not see it – with my own eyes. The biggest news story of the week – the momentous ruling by the Supreme Court on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 – was not covered at all, even obliquely. You’d think that the absurdity of the highest court in the land being called to adjudicate on one of the most basic facts of observable reality – that there are two sexes, and that the words man and woman mean, er, man and woman – would be a rich source of mirth, the kind of glorious nonsense that’s a satirist’s meat and drink. But no. Not a word. Zilch.
‘We begin with the bigger stories of the week,’ said guest host Katherine Parkinson, as is traditional. These turned out to be steel nationalisation and the bin strike in Birmingham. We also heard about the Blue Origin ‘mission’, gambling on the election date, Liz Truss launching her own app. But the thing everybody was actually talking about? No. That just hung in the air like a vicar’s fart, with everybody pretending it hadn’t happened.
– Gareth Roberts (£)
In the Guardian, April O’Neill writes,
The Online Safety Act is now partly enforceable. Paul might make you think a bit harder about it. Understandably, much of the conversation surrounding it has been focused on protecting children, but there is a glaring hole in this legislation regarding the protection of adults. Despite a 2022 report for the Ministry of Justice finding that the role of the internet in radicalisation pathways “was most evident for older rather than younger individuals”, the Tory government backed out from provisions that would have prevented adults from seeing “legal but harmful” content online over fears about freedom of speech.
April O’Neill holds that the people who need to be forcibly protected from hearing bad opinions are old people who distrust left wing media sources. Ms O’Neill is the winner of The Guardian Foundation’s 2025 Emerging Voices Awards (19-25 age category) recognising young talent in political opinion writing.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
