POINTLESS UK EV grant of £3,750

This UK Labour government is as pointless and as misguided as the EV grant that they've introduced of £3,750 for brand-new electric vehicles.

It has to be a new vehicle. I'll tell you why it's a pointless grant and quite hopelessly misconceived. Take a EV that apparently holds value quite well: the Ford Puma GEN-E. Brand-new it costs £29,995 (as at today).

After the first year it'll be worth about £7000 less than that at about £23,000. So the purchaser loses about £7000 after 12 months, a point in the car's life at which the car is almost new. It's as good as new.

So if the buyer buys a nearly new i.e. one year old Ford Puma GEN-E car they will pay £23,000 for it and thereby save themselves £7000. But if they buy new one they will save themselves £3750 under the UK government grant.

It's pretty obvious that the wise choice is to buy a one year old version of this car because you save about twice as much money then you would if you bought a new one.

Other cars will depreciate faster. Many electric vehicles depreciate very rapidly actually, more so than the car mentioned in this article. And therefore the losses will be greater. As soon as the car is driven out of the showroom the buyer loses around £10,000 on many high-end EVs. They're paying £10,000 for the pleasure of smelling a new car!

This government's EV grant scheme is hopeless. It is hopelessly misconceived and is just a PR exercise. Anybody with a bit of common sense will not go down the route of seeking that grant.

In practice, the smart money is almost always a nearly new cars. You might like the dealer perks and the brand-new experience and you might like the maximum warranty but nowadays many cars have very long warranties up to 7 years and therefore taking one year off is neither here nor there.

To be fair, the grant is not absolutely useless. It does reduce the entry price for new buyers and some people really like to be new-car buyers. But in real cash terms, it's benefit is offset by the rapid drop in value of all new cars.

--------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

True or false that British colonialism caused African poverty and chaos?

I am thankful to Rod Liddle of The Sunday Times for the idea of this article. It will be thankfully short as it's not an area of my expertise. However, slavery is being discussed a lot at the moment and whether Britain's colonial past contributed to the country's relative wealth. Although, today, in terms of the country's future, I don't see an awful lot of wealth and another article in today's papers say that Britain is going to be poorer than Poland within five years.

Ethiopia. Arguably as dysfunctional in terms of governance as the rest of most of Africa's countries but never colonised by GB. This is not to say that many other countries outside of Africa are not also dysfunctional in terms of governance. Think Russia for a start.

That is not to criticise Poland in anyway. However, the question being addressed in this article is whether British colonialism caused poverty in Africa and chaos on that continent. And the answer can be found, thanks to Rod Liddle in his research and I think I will quote him verbatim on this if he doesn't mind.

"As Adam Smith pointed out as early as 1776, [colonialism] was of no great benefit to the British Crown or its people: "Under the present system of management Great Britain derived nothing but loss from the Dominion which she assumes over her colonies."

And on the issue of Africa he says that this concept of Britain benefiting greatly from colonisation is wrong but it:

"gnaws away at the general believed assumption that the poverty and chaos of much of Africa is a direct consequence of our Imperial perfidy - an assumption easily refuted by examining the cases of Ethiopia and Liberia, two countries that were not formally colonised (Italy was driven out of Ethiopia after just five years) and that today face exactly the same problems as their neighbours, which were."

Britain's relative wealth is not built on slavery but on "good governance, entrepreneurship, a rapid improvement in general education and literacy, the Protestant work ethic and a primacy placed upon inventiveness". These were far more powerful and important to the success of Great Britain.

My thanks to The Sunday Times and Rod Liddle particularly.

Note: I have no personal views on this topic. If Mr Liddle had said that the evidence pointed to British colonialism causing poverty in Africa I would have accepted it. There were good and bad aspects to the colonial era. That's a fair assessment I'd say.

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

New Zealand's state sanctioned animal AND CHILD abuse by indoctrinating kids to kill non-native species

New Zealand's Ministry of Education encourages children to kill non-native mammals including cats which they label 'pests' (yeh, not 'pets'). It is state sanctioned animal abuse and the abusers are indoctrinated kids. Horrible.

In an astonishing conclusion to his lengthy analysis, Michael C Morris of the Royal Agricultural University, concludes that "even the Ministry of Education resources, encourage children to kill non-native mammals, show them how to set traps, and emphasised to teachers how they need to impress on children the importance of eradicating pests."

New Zealand's state sanctioned animal AND CHILD abuse by indoctrinating kids to kill non-native species. Image: MikeB

Other organisations in New Zealand including four government agencies, three conservation NGOs and one education NGO, promote the killing of non-native species by children.

"Non-native" means a species of animal which has not evolved in the country concerned. The domestic, stray and feral cat in New Zealand is a non-native species. It is therefore an alien species and regarded as a pest by New Zealand's authorities despite the fact that there are many cat loving care givers with cat companions in that beautiful country.

Shame, therefore, that despite being visually beautiful, the mentality of the Ministry of Education is far from beautiful and indeed quite ugly.

All the organisations promote trapping and poisoning to eliminate feral cats and other non-native species. The objective? To preserve biodiversity. To conserve native species because feral cats are very good hunters.

Shockingly, no consideration whatsoever, according to Mr Morris, is given to alternatives "such as changing human activities, non-lethal contraceptive or gene drive techniques, more localised and targeted pest control or translocation techniques such as Operation Nest Egg."

Mr Morris has not mentioned a very well-established alternative with respect to feral cats namely TNR which is widely practised in America where they, too, have a feral cat problem.

TNR is simply not on the radar in New Zealand. Well, it might be in the minds of some decent citizens of New Zealand who want to help feral cats but it is not in the minds of the country's administrators.

New Zealand introduces words such as "war" and "invasion" to describe the "pests" that are the feral cats in their country. For me, it is the feral cats who are the victims as much as the native species upon which they prey. 

The feral cats of New Zealand were introduced to the country as is the case in Australia by immigrants to the country bringing domestic cats with them and allowing those cats to return to the wild and procreate.

The back story, the root of the problem, is not the feral cat which is the 'messenger' of the bad behaviour of humans.

It appears that New Zealand is unique in mandating and encouraging children to kill non-native species which are perfectly good and decent animals. It is entirely inappropriate to single out non-native species as a target for eradication. It's a happenstance due to human carelessness that they are non-native and feral.

For the state to encourage children to kill animals is a form, in my opinion, of state sanctioned child abuse. 

It is indoctrinating them to believe that the cute possum or the cute feral kitten is an enemy of New Zealand. These children probably love the sight of cute possums. That is their natural instinct. And then, the Ministry of Education reprograms their brains to think that they are pests to be killed. It is simply unacceptable.

There are studies which have found a causal relationship between children who've witnessed animal abuse to then being more likely to be animal abusers themselves. 

If the children are animal abusers (which is what this program makes them), they are certainly more likely to become animal abusers and even human abusers when they are adults.

Petition making it a legal requirement for drivers to stop and report collisions with cats will fail

A petition on the UK government website has 102,436 signatures. It was open for 6 months. Its demand is to "Make it a legal requirement for drivers to stop & report collisions with cats". This is a campaign that has been going on for a long time (since at least 2014). It is a good campaign. Drivers have to stop and report accidents with other animals including horses, cattle, asses, mules, sheep, pigs, goats or dogs, but not cats or wild animals. 

Image: MikeB

Because it reached over 100k signatures it has to be debated in the House of Commons. It will be next week. But it is a waste of time because the government will not enact new legislation to comply with the petition. Their reason?

Here is the Department of Transport response on the petition website:

"The Government has no plans to make it an offence to drive off after hitting a cat. A focus for this Government is to make roads safer for all users, which will in turn reduce the risk to all animals. 

Under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a driver is required to stop and report an accident involving specified animals including horses, cattle, asses, mules, sheep, pigs, goats or dogs, but not cats or wild animals. This requirement arises from their status as working animals rather than as domestic pets. To introduce such a measure within the provision of section 170 would require primary legislation. 

Having a law making it a requirement to report road accidents involving cats would be very difficult to enforce and we have reservations about the difference it would make to the behaviour of drivers, who are aware that they have run over a cat and do not report it. 

Although there is no obligation to report all animal deaths on roads, Rule 286 of The Highway Code advises drivers to report any accident involving an animal to the police, and if possible, they should make enquiries to ascertain the owner of domestic animals and advise them of the situation. 

The Government recognises how distressing it can be for someone to lose a pet, especially without knowing what has happened. We committed in our Manifesto, and reaffirmed in our Action Plan for Animal Welfare, to introducing compulsory cat microchipping and plan to introduce the necessary legislation this year. We understand that the vast majority of local authorities now have arrangements in place to scan dead cats and dogs found by them and we will continue working with them and other stakeholders to develop and promote best practice in this area. " - Department for Transport.

That was a massive campaign by some great women to plug a loophole in UK legislation which is unfair on domestic cats. 

The underlying reason why the government won't make new law on this is because they are too busy trying to fix so many profound problems in what many people believe is a broken Britain.

4 scientists deserve praise for saying the truth about feral cat predation in Australia

This band of four scientists deserve praise for pushing back against the doctrine as disseminated by the Australian local governments and the federal government, which is that feral cats on the continent are decimating native species and killing wildlife in the billions. These four scientists have written an article for the website The Conversation which I think puts the record straight. I've been writing about this for years and it almost seems that they have got some ideas for me but I am being big headed. These are the four I'd like to praise.

• Arian Wallach, Lecturer, Centre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney;
• William S. Lynn, Research Scientist, Clark University;
• Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Wisconsin-Madison and;
• Joann Lindenmayer, DVM, MPH is an associate professor in the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine at Tufts University

Their article is titled: Don't blame cats for destroying wildlife-shaky logic is leading to moral panic. The moral panic aspect of the title is interesting. It implies that shooting, trapping and poisoning feral cats in Australia is morally unjustifiable. It certainly is. And they mention, as I have, that Australia has declared war on cats, particularly the feral cat. 

Mad bad and sick as far as I am concerned. Man carries tabby feral cat back to where? He's just shot it at night. He's having great fun saving Australia from native species Armageddon at the hands of feral cats. He is a member of the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia with a cat he shot. Photo: Adam Ferguson for The New York Times

This has been going on for donkeys' years. It is almost as if the governments of the various states of Australia are minded to indoctrinate their citizens into believing that the feral cat is their enemy. I had the pleasure of interviewing an Australian on the topic of feral cats and she almost recited like a mantra what she's been taught by these governments. Although I respect her point of view.

But the experts that I mention on this page say that they have a shaky case against cats. They said the claim that feral cats kill billions of animals causing a catastrophe in conservation does not stand up to scrutiny. Feral cats fit into the ecology of the Australian continent and it is complex. For example, when humans denude places of its vegetation small animals are more at risk of predation by cats because they can't hide. That is a single example.

And they say the small animals are vulnerable when people kill apex predators such as the feral cat. There is a knock-on effect. In Australia dingoes hunt feral cats which relieves pressure on native small animals, they say. If you got rid of the cats would the dingoes hunt small animals? And cats can contribute to the conservation of endangered birds by killing rats and mice. Rats are very efficient predators themselves and they prey on birds.

They say that cats play different roles in different environments and you can't assume that because feral cats are a problem in one place that they are a problem in all places on the Australian continent.

And you can't extrapolate from one small study about feral cat predation on native species and say that that happens across the entire country. In the words of the experts that I want to praise, they say that "many scientists take specific, local studies and over-generalise those findings to the world at large."

They state that there should be a far more rigorous approach to the study of feral and domestic cats and such studies should be "mindful of the importance of ecological context and avoid the pitfalls of faulty reasoning".

These guys deserve praise because they're pushing back against the conventional mantra of these governments which, as mentioned, is indoctrinating the citizens. It is time that this stops and a far more nuanced approach is taken which is also ethical. Almost everything that these governments are doing in relationship to feral cats are unethical and cruel. Their slogan is to kill them anyway possible. Crude and stupid, I'd say.

Welsh government to formally investigate big cat sightings in Wales

Wales seems to be a country where there is a preponderance of big cat sightings and as such there is an open secret that there are big cats roaming North Wales attacking sheep and leaving broken and bloody caracasses in fields. There have been reports from: Buckley, Corwen, Denbigh, Llangollen, Mold, Mostyn, Pentre Halkyn, Pontybodkin, Pentre Halkyn, Rhuallt, and Talacre in 2020 and 2021 according to Leader Live. And also Chester and Ellesmere Port.

Big cat sighting in Italy is probably genuine. An escaped pet melanistic leopard but 99% of sightings are fake. See this story by clicking here.

It seems to be agreed that a formal, government managed process needs to be in place to investigate these big cat sightings. Once it is suspected that a big cat is present a formal investigation will take place. It sounds as if they will be detailed and thorough including a post mortem examination and a visit to the site of the attack.

The Welsh Environment Minister Lesley Griffiths said: "The Welsh Government’s policy is to investigate any reports received by the Department for Economy, Skills and Natural Resources of alleged sightings and attacks by big cats on livestock in Wales."

People should report sightings to the police when there is a threat to human life. No real evidence has been unearthed thus far. There is a group called Puma Watch North Wales which investigates sightings of I presume pumas (aka mountain lions).

Pumas are mostly spotted in Snowdonia and the Clwydian Hills. But there have also been sightings in urban areas miles away from the aforesaid locations. It is thought that the Covid-19 lockdowns may have encouraged the big cats to be more bold and frequent places where there are people but self-isolating inside their homes.

Comment: It is nice to see the Welsh government taking big cat sightings in their country seriously. I can't take it seriously myself. Over many years, even decades, there have been no decent quality photos of these mysterious cats. It is impossible to believe they exist. There'd be some clean evidence by now if they did.