Reflecting on Burn'em's first three months, Yougov asked whether we expected him to do well or badly and whether he had done as expected. Needless to say I voted that I expected him to do badly and he has done badly - 23% agreed with me, but the results are spread evenly. ents as to whether you agree?

Dramatic predictions of a 5.5°C rise by 2100 are now dismissed as 'implausible' - and planet Earth is not even remotely facing runaway warming.

The United Nations warming scenario is now widely acknowledged by scientists as implausible. We also live within a cooler ice age tens of millions of years. Global temperatures remain a full 9°C colder than the 24°C average spanning the past 485 million years (Judd et al., Science 2024).

Also, world temperatures have only changed by up to 1.4°C over the roughly 250 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution. This is not sufficient justification for a crisis.

First introduced in 2011 to guide policy, this extreme scenario - known as RCP8.5 (and later SSP5-8.5) - served as the primary engine for the terrifying headlines for over a decade. With the retirement of the extreme 5.5°C baseline ahead of the 7th Assessment Report (AR7), the ceiling for high-emissions temperature projections has been dropped.

The IPCC's high-end baselines have been downgraded toward a maximum around 3.3°C, and even this is likely to be just as implausible. Perhaps this is why the latest AR7 committee hearings have just been suspended.

Changes in CO₂ concentrations do not automatically trigger runaway temperatures. The world is too complex, and too many other factors have been left out. Any analysis of past climate reveals the world does not have a single temperature or a single climate; these are computerised composites, designed to maximise existential dread.

A lift in CO₂ has already delivered measurable green leaf expansion across the world, as captured by NASA satellite data. Some cereal crop yields have jumped by 280%.
CO₂ is a trace atmospheric gas - around 420 parts per million - which is among the lowest concentrations in all geological history, while the atmosphere is over 99% nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, with water vapor exceeding CO₂ many times over.

This deceptive original scenario - promoted heavily through the UN and the media - galvanised Net Zero and unleashed global hysteria. It forced the premature decline of reliable energy systems across the West and deindustrialised heavy industry.

The West's arch competitor, China, inherited the title of the world's greatest manufacturing nation in history. Now Beijing provides around 90% of the world's turbines, solar panels and components. Its industrial power is built on the world's greatest volume of coal-fired power stations.

It is also the world's largest annual emitter of carbon dioxide, producing roughly 30% to 33% of global carbon dioxide emissions annually - releasing over 13 billion tons per year.

This is the greatest transfer of wealth in history - without a shot fired in anger.

Labour are hypocrites. Not surprising. Persecuting electricity users with ridiculous green taxes then allowing the Jackdaw gas field to go ahead. I am a member of Yougov and were able to vote on today's question of the day and 43% agree with me and "strongly support" further Sea -Drill, Baby, Drill!

Looking at increasing my influence across social media and wondering whether other platforms may provide increased views now that x.com punishes right wing accounts by minimising their reach.
I have accounts on Substack:
substack.com/@comptussto396…
and Wordpress - discovered my last regular posts were in 2008!
bubblyian.wordpress.com/2026/10/21/fre…
Please let me know if you prefer to see my posts on there or on here. Which do you use the most?

I used to believe in dialogue as a way to resolve differences in politics. Communication between left and right could resolve the issues by agreeing on the facts and evidence. Not any more.
I had my 45th College reunion at the weekend with former classmates and fellow engineers. I would have thought that a group of intelligent and successful people, albeit newly retired, would have realised what was happening in the west. Nope. All utterly loony left and attacking me for my pro-Trump views. No polite conversation, just a succession of false accusations against Trump which they wouldn't let me explain before launching the next attack. No opportunity to look at the disastrous democrat alternative, just one attack after another. I suspect I will not be attending the 46th reunion next year.

Just cancelled my x.com subscription and they asked why, so said the following: "As a verified subscriber I expected to have some visibility boost on my posts, but I do not. I have 10,600 followers but rarely get more than 3-400 views. I have 30% verified followers yet my progress towards your new payment threshold is impossibly slow as you do not count replies to posts only original posts which nobody is seeing. plus I am a right-wing account according to your algorithm so massively limited in visibility except when I attack other right-wing accounts. I get no benefits for the extra costs and have zero chance of ever reaching your new monetisation threshold so have quit." Do other people agree? A)Impossible for small and right-wing accounts to get to monetisation or B) I should keep trying.

Whitehall Inside the BBC: Who Really Shapes the News?

For years the BBC has insisted that its journalism is independent of government. Now we learn that serving civil servants have been working inside its newsroom, helping shape coverage of politically sensitive issues in me, elections, Covid and public spending. A woman seconded from the Welsh government during the pandemic acknowledged that her advice had led to BBC news lines being changed and new stories being told. That raises the question: how far should serving government officials be involved in shaping the editorial output of a broadcaster whose independence from the state is supposed to be sacrosanct?

Another secondee drafted material on migration and crime statistics. Officials from Defra and other departments helped prepare coverage of Budgets and government figures. These are subjects on which Whitehall has its own institutional interests, preferred explanations and its reputation to protect. Yet civil servants were helping the national broadcaster decide how the numbers should be understood and presented to millions of viewers.

The recruitment advert for the 2027 intake sought candidates able to influence decision-making. That wording alone does not prove political interference, but it makes the BBC's blanket assurances deserving of scrutiny. Government statisticians have described helping journalists select figures, develop explanations and shape reports. Some have been credited under BBC News or BBC Verify bylines without their civil service positions being sufficiently clear. The public was entitled to know who was contributing to these stories. Instead, the BBC has promised to amend bylines only after The Telegraph began asking questions.

The financial arrangement deepens the concern. The secondees remain on salaries paid by their government departments while working inside the BBC. Taxpayers therefore fund officials who help produce coverage of policies, statistics and controversies involving the institutions employing them. Nobody needs to allege secret instructions from ministers to recognise the conflict this creates. The permanent state is capable of shaping public debate through shared assumptions, professional habits and institutional loyalties. When those responsible for producing official figures also help shape how the national broadcaster explains them, the separation between government and journalism becomes dangerously blurred.

Professor Carl Heneghan, director of Oxford University's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, has questioned whether officials with competing interests can remain impartial. His concern goes to the heart of the matter. A civil servant may act conscientiously, correct genuine errors and still approach a controversy through the assumptions of the institution in which their career has been formed. The BBC argues that statistical expertise improves accuracy and that its journalists retain final editorial control. That defence deserves examination, not automatic acceptance. Who checked the secondees' contributions? Who decided which interpretations were challenged? And how often did advice from Whitehall change the story that reached the public?

Thirty-nine civil servants have passed through this scheme in eight years. The BBC now promises greater disclosure while maintaining that editorial independence was never compromised. But independence requires more than an assurance from the institution whose conduct is being questioned. It requires visible safeguards, honest attribution and scrutiny of how stories are produced. As ministers consider extending compulsory BBC funding to streaming households, the public discovers that serving officials have been helping shape its news. The corporation asks Britain to trust its independence. It must now explain why serving officials from Whitehall were helping shape its journalism, and why the public was not clearly told who they were.

FRANCE 2026 ☠️ 🇫🇷

It’s no longer just the major cities, they are destroying & burning down everything across France.

This is Marxism/ Communism + Multiculturalism/ Islam.

The Marxist Globalist French Government radicalised & weaponised the youth & brought millions of 3rd world majorithe country.

This is the result.

Reform rejected my application to be a candidate last year because I had posted support for a ban on circumcision in one of my posts, which apparently was not one of their policies. I searched my 8000 posts and discovered 22 that mentioned circumcision and deleted them.
I January and recently received a rejection because of my comments on muslims and reposted videos showing violence by muslims against British people. I am also following @RupertLowe10 . I asked grok to analyse my posts to compare with Reform policy and grok confirmed I had a number of posts criticising islam and proposing banning muslims from positions of power in the UK. Needless to say I now have no chance of being a Reform MP. What should I do next?

Should I stay in Reform, join Restore, quit politics or leave UK altogether?

I suspect the electricity company were embarrassed by their failure to actually visit the property and take a genuine meter reading for more than 3 years so want to hide their incompetence by shutting down my complaint and allowing him to transfer to another energy company. Maybe my business partner knew that particular electricity company did not do meter readings very often and so the scam was possible.

550 Baptised! Go on Merlin!! The largest in UK's HISTORY!!!

My BANNED speech: "The British Police State" - please share this far and wide!

🇮🇱 El primer ministro Netanyahu: "Gran Bretaña se ha convertido en un estado renegado".

(Daily Mail)

«Siempre consideramos a Gran Bretaña un aliado, aunque a veces teníamos diferencias con ellos, pero la situación no se había deteriorado hasta el punto en que, para congraciarse e han comportado de manera deshonesta, como un estado fuera de control. Gran Bretaña está liderando el ataque en apoyo a la alianza islamista-izquierdista, cuando deberían ser adversarios naturales. Porque, ¿qué hace esta gente? Cuelgan a los homosexuales, privan a las mujeres de todos sus derechos, asesinan a su propio pueblo en Gaza, en el Líbano o en Irán, y ejecutan a sus enemigos. Son lo opuesto a las democracias. ¿Y qué hace el gobierno de Gran Bretaña? Se pone en contra de la única democracia que está luchando contra estos regímenes monstruosos y este terrible estado terrorista, el peor estado terrorista del planeta. Eso es lo que está haciendo Gran Bretaña.
🤔Israel Sector News!

🚨 READ THIS. SHARE THIS. BECAUSE NOBODY IN POWER WILL. 🚨

HE LIVES IN OUR COUNTRY.
HE TAKES OUR MONEY.
HE CALLS OUR HOME "THE ABODE OF INFIDELS."
AND HE JUST REPORTED A BRITISH MP TO THE POLICE FOR DISAGREEING WITH HIM.

His name is Roshan Muhammed Salih. He runs 5Pillars. And ead will make your blood run cold.

Not because it is shocking. Because every single word of it is documented, sourced, and sitting in plain sight. And nobody. Not one single authority in this country. Has done a damn thing about it.

Let's start with Hamas.

On October 7th 2023 Hamas butchered 1,200 of our allies. They raped women next to the bodies of their murdered friends. They dragged grandmothers through the streets. They burned families alive. The world watched in horror.

Roshan Salih told his 210,000 followers on X that the IDF probably killed their own people and made the whole thing up.

He called the United Nations rape investigation "a complete fraud."

He has never. Not once. Condemned Hamas.

Not once.

Because in his own words, published in the Guardian, in black and white, with his name on it, Hamas are "legitimate actors." His words. The Guardian. 2009. Go and read it.

Now let's talk about the Taliban.

While British soldiers were coming home in body bags from Afghanistan. While Gold Star families were burying their children. While the nation grieved. Roshan Salih went on camera and said "I am supportive of Taliban, wish them a lot of success."

This year, in August 2026, he published a piece celebrating five years of Taliban rule calling Afghanistan "more Islamic, largely at peace."

More Islamic.

Girls banned from school. Journalists executed. Women flogged in the street.

More Islamic. That is his measure of success. Written on a platform operating out of London. Out of our country. Using our laws. Hiding behind our press freedoms.

Now here is where it gets truly ugly.

This man spent five years as the head of news for Press TV in London. The Iranian regime's propaganda arm. The channel Ofcom banned from our airwaves for taking editorial orders directly from Tehran. The channel that to this day is linked to Iranian intelligence operations on British soil. He was their man in London. Their first London news editor. Their voice in our capital city.

And while he was there he wrote in the Guardian that the Iranian government is "fundamentally decent."

The Iranian government that bankrolls Hamas.
The Iranian government that arms Hezbollah.
The Iranian government that hangs gay teenagers from cranes.

Fundamentally decent.

Before Press TV he was at Al Jazeera. Qatar's state-funded Muslim Brotherhood-aligned propaganda network. Before that the Islam Channel. Fined by Ofcom for antisemitic hate speech. His entire career is a tour of our enemies' payrolls. 18 years of Saudi, Qatari and Iranian money flowing through his bank account. 18 years. And then he had the nerve to tell you he was "completely independent."

He is not independent. He never was.

Now look at who he surrounds himself with.

His book was launched by the Islamic Human Rights Commission. A charity now under ACTIVE statutory inquiry by the Charity Commission. Breach of trust. Funding extremist activities. Their chair has been linked to Hezbollah support. This is where Salih chose to launch his book. Not Waterstones. Not a university. A charity being investigated for funding extremists.

His 5Pillars co-founder Dilly Hussain platforms Taliban spokespeople. His website has published content from Moazzam Begg. Arrested at an Al-Qaeda safe house in Pakistan. That Moazzam Begg. His platform gave an interview to Mark Collett. An actual neo-Nazi. An interview even the press regulator ruled was discriminatory.

One platform. The Taliban. Al-Qaeda. Neo-Nazis. Hamas denial. Iranian regime propaganda. Hezbollah support.

All of it under his editorial control.
All of it hosted on servers paid for with our charity money.

Yes. Our charity money.

In 2020 5Pillars received a £3,000 COVID emergency grant from the Public Interest News Foundation. British charity money. Taxpayer-adjacent money given to help journalism survive a pandemic. Three days later his platform published a video calling homosexuality "a gross crime against Allah." When the regulator found them guilty of inciting hatred against the LGBTQ community he did not apologise. He quit the regulator. He called for a separate Muslim press regulator outside British standards. Outside British law. Outside British accountability.

Because British standards do not apply to him.

Nothing does.

His 5Pillars company at Companies House has a confirmation statement that is currently overdue. He cannot even be bothered to file basic legal paperwork while running a terror-adjacent media operation in the heart of London.

And it gets worse. It gets so much worse.

In 2017 under his editorship 5Pillars produced a video that former government Extremism Commissioner Sara Khan documented in detail. A video explicitly promoting "physical jihad." The caliphate. Islamic penal codes. Stoning. Amputation. The exact ideology that sent British Muslims to join ISIS. Produced. Edited. Published. Under his name. On his platform.

Physical jihad.

From London.

In 2024 he declared on camera that "our focus as Muslims must be to ensure that Israel ceases to exist, no matter how long it takes."

No matter how long it takes.

From our country.

And now this week. Today. October 8th 2026. The day this post goes out. Fresh from his keyboard. 5Pillars reported Reform UK MP Robert Jenrick to the Metropolitan Police and the Prevent counter-extremism programme.

Why?

Because Jenrick said the Islamification of Britain is one of the greatest threats to our way of life.

Because Jenrick wants to ban the burqa.
Because Jenrick wants to end Sharia courts.
Because Jenrick wore a hoodie saying Hamas are terrorists.

For this 5Pillars wants him arrested under the Public Order Act. Referred to Prevent. The programme built to stop terrorism. Being used against a British MP by a man who called Hamas legitimate actors and praised the Taliban on camera.

Read that sentence again. As many times as you need to.

The man who promotes physical jihad wants to Prevent the man who says Hamas are terrorists.

This is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is accidental. This is a strategy. Deliberate. Calculated. Relentless. Use our laws against us. Weaponise our tolerance. Report the patriots. Shield the extremists. Scream Islamophobia at anyone who looks too closely. File police complaints against MPs while filing zero about yourself despite 28 years of documented pro-terror content sitting in plain sight on the internet.

He called Reform UK voters "outright racists and Islamophobes."

He called Jewish interfaith volunteers "Zionist infiltrators."

He dismissed the grooming gang scandal as "fake noise" designed to help Nigel Farage.

He said Muslims in Britain should pull their children out of school especially the girls.

He called for a mass physical training programme for Muslims to defend themselves.

Defend themselves against what?

He does not say.

He does not need to.

His audience knows.

This is who is operating in our country. Right now. Today. With 210,000 followers being fed a daily diet of Hamas apologia, Taliban celebration, Israeli elimination, Prevent manipulation, and anti-British hatred dressed up as news.

28 years.

Not one charge.
Not one arrest.
Not one serious parliamentary debate.
Not one serious newspaper investigation beyond what you are reading right now.

Just a man in London calling our home the Abode of Infidels while we pay for his charity grants, protect him with our laws, and allow him to report our elected politicians to the police for saying what the majority of this country believes.

The Charity Commission is circling his IHRC allies.
The press regulator already convicted him twice.
His own company is delinquent at Companies House.
His own words are the prosecution case.

We do not need new laws.
We do not need new powers.
We need the authorities we already have to do the job they already exist to do.

And we need every single person who reads this to share it until someone in power cannot ignore it anymore.

Because Roshan Muhammed Salih has had 28 years to love this country.

He called it the Abode of Infidels.

He made his position clear.

Now it is time we made ours.

SHARE THIS POST. TAG YOUR MP. TAG YOUR MEDIA. TAG EVERYONE.

BECAUSE SILENCE IS HOW WE GOT HERE.

Comparing Reform/Restore policies and my own opinion: Policy 6: Youth unemployment.
Both parties propose tackling this issue by reducing employer's NI for 'young' people and other targeted support measures including paid or subsidised apprenticeships and work placements. Parties e by cutting benefits if the young person refuses offers. These are just tinkering.
Cause: School education is failing to prepare young people for the workplace. The focus on irrelevant subjects and political brainwashing is making young people unemployable on leaving school. While Burn'em has talked about increasing the perceived value of 'vocational' colleges instead of university post-18, nobody wants to change the curriculum and teaching styles.
Solution: 1)School - children should be taught about money. Learn to budget, live within their means, recognise priority and non-priority debts, how to use credit cards, resist advertising pressure, wants and needs, and how to invest, set up businesses, learn about the laws, tax, AI and profit and investments. In addition they should spend more time in the work-place as interns or create artificial offices in the school. Children must leave school prepared for work, not just for more education. Schools should be assessed on what percentage of their leavers go directly into a job.
2)Student grants. Most university graduates never pay off their student loan. Billions are owed to the tax-payers. This system has failed. Bring back means-tested grants for university, but only for those subjects leading to a meaningful career. This can also be measured against work visas indicating skills shortages with the aim of massively reducing work visa applications. Universities should also be graded on the percentage of students that go straight into a connected job. We have far too many universities and far too many students learning meaningless subjects at tax-payers expense.
3)Streaming. At around the age of 11, most parents/children/teachers will know what the young person is best at and enjoys doing (hopefully the same subject). Reducing the number of topics for secondary education and ensuring a focus on the type of subjects likely to lead to a career field suitable for that student (and needed by the country) should then follow.
4)The most important task and the reason for living is to have children. The best way of bringing up children nis within the stable 2-parent family. This must be included in the school education system. Children need to learn about the importance of relationships and how to make them work. Children need to know how to be a parent and to look after children. The focus on careers, particularly for women, as the only thing that matters as an adult must change. To boost the birth rate (see other article) needs women to delay careers until their youngest children are in primary school (or permanently). This needs to be taught at school instead of the opposite.
5)We are a Christian country. Christian values need to be taught as a priority and an end to the idea that all religions are equally important.

Comparing Reform/Restore policies and my own opinion: Policy 5: Boost the Birth Rate.
Both parties have similar policies, but none will have more than a trivial impact on the birth rate owing to their combined failure to understand the causes of the collapse in both marriage th rates over the last 50 years.
Cause: Hypergamy and feminism. Since women choose their male partners at or above their status/potential on a hierarchy (hypergamy), and feminism and feminist policies encourage and reward women who either reject men altogether (and become old maids/lesbian) or 'prefer' career over motherhood, then for every woman who has a job that is a man who does not have a job (zero-sum game) resulting in low status men who are of no interest to women. As women move up the status hierarchy, there are less and less men above them to choose from, resulting in lower marriage rates among successful women.
So financial incentives, transferring tax allowances and other expensive and ineffectual 'bribes' will have minimal impact. Thus if anyone really wanted to boost the birth rate (which none of the parties have shown any serious interest in doing so) then tackling hypergamy and feminist policies is fundamental.
1)Even Simone de Beauvoir in 1975 said, "No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." That understanding of the biological imperative in most women dominated anti-family anti-male anti-children feminist policies to 'force' (ie bribe/brainwash) women to not have babies and/or relationships with men.
Solution: Encourage/reverse this brainwashing at schools, university and the media - to encourage women to delay having a career until after their youngest child is at primary school (or work part-time school hours or work from home). Since we will all have to work into our seventies, what is the hurry?
2) End the 'winner takes all' system of benefits and tax credits being given 100% to the primary carer (90% women), by sharing everything equally between both biological parents from birth (including parental responsibility) regardless of shared care arrangements.
3)Parties MUST state categorically that in all matters pertaining to children then the BEST interests of the CHILD shall be paramount. That means all support and encouragement MUST support the stable 2-parent biological family through marriage as this is statistically the BEST way of raising children. (see attached research doc)
4)Compulsory DNA tests on babies before leaving maternity hospital to avoid paternity fraud, which could affect up to 20% of babies. BOTH parents must know with absolute certainty whether the baby is biologically their baby or not.
5) Reform and Restore have discussed making divorce more difficult by removing no fault divorce. This is an irrelevant bureaucratic issue. The key change to support marriage is to remove the financial incentive for (mainly) women to divorce. People can opt-in to a financial separation arrangement by drafting a prenup, but in the absence of doing so parties should get out what they put in. There should be a presumption AGAINST an intention to legally share family assets. If a woman wants the benefit of the man's wealth, she MUST stay with him to enjoy it. He has no duty to support her after she leaves him.
6)Scrap the child support agency. (Mainly) fathers should not be forced to pay a percentage of their income to the mother (tax-free) based purely on their income not on the needs of the child. As a compromise, the csa could focus on chasing those fathers who 'run away' and choose not to spend any time with their children and only punish them with a csa assessment, rather than those that do spend time with their children. (rather than the other way round, at present).