I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I don’t consider myself a republican. A proper monarchy is what I want. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.

It does not play politics. That is the whole purpose of the Crown. Three generations of Royals supported one of the most controversial causes in history, but they did so in recent days.

It’s possible to not even know this now. Many institutions in conformity have been dissolved over the past year, however, it remains controversial that human activity is responsible for climate change. 

It is clear that even though the Duke of Edinburgh was the scientifically-mindedest member of the Royal Family there are still some doubts.

The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history

It does not play politics. That is the whole purpose of the Crown. In the last few days however, three generations have supported one of most contentious causes of human history.

It is extremely difficult to establish causation in these cases. This problem is even harder to solve.

For example, our decision to stop coal-fired electricity while China rapidly expands its coal-burning power generation is absurd and futile. In fact the Western world’s self-harming methods, while China blithely continues as before, are the economic equivalent of one-sided disarmament. By sacrificing our power and wealth and our freedom of action, we hope to convince an aggressive, arrogant dictatorship to behave nice. This will not work.

This is not something that everyone agrees to. While all major parties support this, they can often be wrong and rarely are they more wrong than when everyone agrees. Others may be thinking like mine, conservatives who once believed that one person could hold the highest office in our country and was worthy of respect. Now there’s no such person.

Since years there has been evidence that the Queen was persuaded to take a more political correct position. This was made possible by the great frenzy after Princess Diana’s passing.

This country, along with many others in the global free world, are now being forced to accept the most intolerant dogma since the collapse of Communism thirty years ago. This ideology is what you need to accept to survive or succeed, and it affects Boy Scouts, Girl guides, and schoolchildren as well as their teachers, priests and parsons, and TV presenters.

If you don’t, you are slandered as a ‘climate change denier’. It is not debate. This lies and is deceitful. Firstly I don’t ‘deny’ the fact that the climate is changing. This is undisputed. But the use of the word ‘denier’ is intended to sub-consciously suggest that I am like Holocaust deniers (the only other major use of this expression).

The BBC decided some years back that they had no obligation to be fair about this topic. But that was to be expected. Despite their recent promise of an ‘impartiality revolution’, BBC Director General Tim Davie was quick to declare that ‘climate change is no longer politically controversial’ and that the ‘overwhelming consensus is that we as humanity are causing global warming’. This may be true. This consensus could also be true.

It could also be wrong, as the truth cannot be established through consensus. The ‘overwhelming consensus’ when Neville Chamberlain came back from meeting Hitler at Munich in 1938 was that he was a hero of peace who had saved the world from war. Huge crowds cheered him back at Buckingham Palace. However, it is difficult to find footage of the event.

Sad to report, the then King, the Queen’s father George VI, was among Chamberlain’s deluded admirers, the worst thing he ever did. Of course, he made amends later. But it was a terrible mistake, and so was the Queen’s Green speech.

E-scooter menace that’s being ignored

In at least two cities, Portsmouth and Canterbury, discontent is growing about the e-scooter menace inflicted on them by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps. He has licensed ‘trials’ of these rightly illegal machines, during which the law is suspended, all over the country. In Portsmouth, more than 100 accidents have been recorded since March, with more than 13 deemed to be ‘serious’, requiring hospital treatment.

In Canterbury, the local Police and Crime Commissioner, Matthew Scott, says: ‘E-scooters are an absolute menace and should be banned outright – no more trials, no legalisation of privately owned ones. Already, people are being seriously hurt and killed by them.

‘I’ve spoken to doctors who are seeing the impact on their wards. The Government needs to take action before people buy more of these e-scooters for Christmas.’

But in both cities, rather than the machines being banned, ‘experiments’ have been extended, apparently on the say-so of the Transport Department. Do you think this is just a prelude to full legalization? It seems increasingly so.

Because there are not many official numbers, The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety is trying to discover the truth.

Around 20,000 legal rental and half-a million illicit private e-scooters are on the road at any given time. There have been 9 deaths from e-scooters over the past ten months and another 300. It is possible that this underestimates the severity of the problem. Inherently unsafe, E-scooters can be unstable and not protected. They are therefore illegal. They won’t replace cars, and they don’t have any green power because they are generated from electricity.

They are successful and lucrative because they are made cheaply in China and appeal to human laziness – to people who cannot be bothered to walk or cycle.

Legalization is a disaster. Your MP should write you to request that the ban be retained.

I’ve been a Top Gun too – so does that mean I can be PM?

The stream of photos of Foreign Secretary Liz Truss striding around the globe in strikingly-clad poses fascinates me. Some were taken by an authorized photographer who was paid by you and I. I’m not sure what they have to do with her job, but suspect they do no harm to her (presumed) hopes of rising even further.

However, I was most struck by Ms Truss’s recent flight deck study on HMS Queen Elizabeth.

In this she is wearing a proper Top Gun pilot’s helmet, complete with double visor and some other military clobber.

I have been round Whitehall and can’t so far find anyone who can explain why she was wearing it.

It has inspired me to search my archives to find a photo of me wearing the exact same clothes, as well as other non-glamorous items mainly related to G-forces. It was, however, the prelude for a real flight in a twoseater RAF Harrier. There were also lots of instruction about how to use ejector seating.

Also, I have many photos of myself in front of the massive statues and monuments to dictators. Do I qualify to be the Prime Minister of Iraq if there are enough?

I was especially struck by a recent study of Ms Truss on the flight deck of the giant aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth

The recent flight deck study by Ms Truss of HMS Queen Elizabeth was a striking sight.

I also have lots of pictures of myself outside mosques, or next to the enormous statues of dictators, on a submarine, next to a knocked-out tank and a mass grave in Iraq, and so on. If I produce enough of these, can I be Prime Minister? Peter Hitchens is pictured in 1987

There are many pictures I have of me outside of mosques or near the huge statues of dictators. They include photos of me on a submarine next to an abandoned tank, beside a bombed-out tank, in a mass grave in Iraq and others. Can I become Prime Minister if I have enough pictures of myself outside mosques or next to the enormous statues of dictators? Peter Hitchens in 1987

You can comment on Peter Hitchens by clicking here