Saturday 30 September 2023

The UK’s New Bill of No Rights


The UK’s New Bill of No Rights

The UK Government's proposed Modern Bill of Rights is designed to provide it with a legal framework completely to ignore all of our rights. It is the keystone for the new UK dictatorship.

Contrary to government claims, it has no power to define, alter, restrict or otherwise control our rights. In point of fact, no-one does.

All government can do is deceive us into imagining that it has this supernatural ability. Whether government establishes a Modern Bill of Rights or not, it will make no difference to our rights. They remain entirely intact, regardless of the whims of government.

Unfortunately, millions of people don't know this and continue to imagine that government can limit their rights. In order for the con to work, all that is required is that the people concede a fallacy: namely, that rights are bestowed upon the people by governments. They are not.

If we accept the Government's assertion that it does create rights, we also have to accept the consequences. The Government's claim, then, does have an impact upon our "perceived" rights, and consequently our lives—but only if we believe that government is magic.

As the majority does maintain this belief in magical government, many are led to argue that our real rights are materially irrelevant. Government uses force to compel us to act or desist; therefore, they say, to all intents and purposes, rights are effectively granted by government.

This view holds sway. It is commonly expressed as the widely-held delusion that so-called human rights are rights. Human rights are not rights but rather government permits, authorised by self-declared superheroes.

If we continue to reject the existence of our real rights, preferring to believe in the fiction of human rights, then the inevitable consequence is oppression and tyranny. And that is precisely what the UK Government's Modern Bill of Rights is intended to deliver.


What Are Rights?

In 1882, Lysander Spooner wrote Natural Law; or the Science of Natural Justice. He explained how rights operate in nature. The key to understanding rights is that they are not dependent upon the laws of men and women. No human being defines our individual rights. They are inherent to natural law.

Natural law is the universal law of all human interactions that precedes and supersedes all positive law created by kings and queens, courts and legislatures. Natural law prevails independently of our existence on earth, and we neither control nor influence it. Nor, by extension, do we have any ability to determine natural justice or inalienable rights. (The adjective unalienable is historically of very similar meaning to the adjective inalienable.)

Spooner wrote:

Natural law, natural justice, [. . .] a principle that is naturally applicable and adequate to the rightful settlement of every possible controversy that can arise among men; [. . .] the only standard by which any controversy whatever, between man and man, can be rightfully settled; [. . .] an immutable principle, one that is always and everywhere the same, in all ages and nations; [. . .] self-evidently necessary in all times and places; [. . .] so entirely impartial and equitable towards all; so indispensable to the peace of mankind everywhere; so vital to the safety and welfare of every human being; [. . .] so easily learned, so generally known, and so easily maintained by such voluntary associations as all honest men can readily and rightfully form for that purpose[.]

Natural law is an eternal, immutable truth that contradicts the postmodernist rejection of objective reality. But we don't need philosophical discourse to comprehend natural law; it can be demonstrated using simple logic.

Let's consider the example of the positive laws—those created ('posited') by human beings—which specify that the act of theft is a crime.

Envisage the first court of the first Sumerian king, or whoever was the first king, that initially proclaimed that theft was, henceforth, "illegal". How could the court possibly have created any such law unless it already understood what personal property was, and grasped the difference between right and wrong?

Where did the concept of a "right" to possess something called “property” come from, prior to the existence of positive law? How did the court know that infringing that right was "wrong"? On what basis did it determine that the act of theft was morally unacceptable in the first place?

The answer is simple. Human beings don't define what is right or wrong. We merely come to recognise it.

This is natural law, and it already governed the conduct of human beings long before they could record it in official documents. Natural law enabled humanity to live in relative harmony for hundreds of thousands of years before it developed any written language.

All living creatures have no choice but to abide by natural law. Natural, spontaneous order must exist for termites to construct their mounds, for lions to live in prides, dolphins in pods, and humans in civilisations.

Without natural law, the universe would be nothing but chaos. It is the law of cause and effect, action and consequence, and it determines the motion of the spheres, just as it determines the repercussions of our behaviour. 

Like any natural phenomenon, we can study natural law as a science and subsequently learn to live by the principles of natural justice that we discover. Justice too, then, is a natural phenomenon, and is the restoration of right when a wrong has been committed. We can return to the only possible condition for peace: equilibrium under natural law.

Spooner said:

The science of mine and thine—the science of justice—is the science of all human rights; of all a man’s rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.

If we understand this, then rights, according to Spooner, can be expressed very simply:

The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man’s legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: “To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.” This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due.

For Spooner, to live an honest life, to be honourable in all deeds and contracts, is the entire extent of human beings' legal duty. Unfortunately, in a postmodernist world where government is determined to ignore natural law, even something as simple as to live honestly, which is straightforward enough for most people to understand, requires further explanation for some.

Real rights are not "human rights"; they are the natural, inalienable rights we are all born with. They can be understood quite easily and summed up thus:

  • All human beings are born with equal rights. These rights are inalienable. "Wrong" is any act that causes harm or loss to another human being. Everything we do that is not wrong—that is, any act that does not cause harm or loss to another human being—is therefore "right". Inalienable rights are any and all human actions that do not cause harm or loss to any other human being. Every action that is right is an inalienable right.


Inalienable (Unalienable) Rights Defined

Though, for some, the notion of inalienable rights may seem strange, even impossible to understand, it is in fact a commonly held concept familiar to many of the great leaders who authored some of the seminal documents in world political history.

The US Declaration of Independence states in its Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note that these rights do not emanate from the statutes (declarations of what is lawful) of some high-ranking political office. They are not royally decreed or legislated into existence, nor adjudged to be valid by any court. They are endowed upon all, equally, without deviation or exception. 

Inalienable rights are bestowed upon us by nature itself. We each possess equal inalienable rights simply by virtue of being alive. 

Also note that, for the Founding Fathers of the United States, this was an absolute truth that was "self-evident".

The preamble to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

[R]ecognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world[.]

Justice and peace are existent only when the conditions are precisely as Spooner described in 1882. There simply cannot be "peace in the world" without stringent observance of everyone's equal, inalienable rights by all, and an abiding commitment never to infringe them.

Spooner specified the only two conditions required to maintain justice and peace in the world:

These conditions are simply these: [. . .] [E]ach man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do[.] [. . .] The second condition is, that each man shall abstain from doing to another, anything which justice forbids him to do[.] [. . .] So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace, and ought to remain at peace, with each other. But when either of these conditions is violated, men are at war. And they must necessarily remain at war until justice is re-established.

The generally accepted “legal” definition of inalienable rights reads:

The term given to the fundamental rights accorded to all people.

So, as stated in the US Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and even the standby common-law legal dictionary definition, inalienable rights are equally shared by every soul on the planet. 

No-one, whether they claim themselves to be a legislator, king or deity, has any additional rights beyond the rights commonly held by all.

No-one has the "additional right" to decide the rights of others; no-one possesses extra rights to restrict the rights of others; and, as all rights are inalienable and immutable, no-one has the added right to give away or cede their own inalienable rights to anyone else.


The UK's New Bill of No Rights

Governments despise inalienable rights. Such rights prescribe individual sovereignty, and no government is willing to acknowledge that it does not have total dominion over its subjects. Lysander Spooner understood this perfectly well.

He raised the question: if natural law, natural justice and the observance of inalienable rights are all we need to firmly establish justice and peace in the world, why don't we practice natural law? Why do we instead insist upon obeying the laws made up by unscrupulous men and women who write them primarily to protect their own power, privilege and authority? 

Spooner concluded:

Why is it that any human being ever conceived that anything so self-evidently superfluous, false, absurd, and atrocious as all legislation necessarily must be, could be of any use to mankind, or have any place in human affairs? The answer is, that through all historic times, wherever any people [. . .] learned to increase their means of subsistence [. . .] a greater or less number of them have associated and organized themselves as robbers, to plunder and enslave all others[.] These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labor of their slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons [. . .] extend their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and cooperate with each other in holding their slaves in subjection. But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a government, and making what they call laws.

Government has invented human rights so that it can pretend that these fake rights have humanitarian value. This is done simply to convince us that government defines rights for our benefit. As long as we continue to believe this, government can amend, restrict or remove these meaningless proclamations and, in so doing, convince us that it has genuinely changed the nature of our rights.

In its proposal for a New Bill of Rights, the UK Government said:

The government wants to introduce a Bill of Rights in a way that protects people’s fundamental rights whilst safeguarding the broader public interest. For that framework to work, it must command public confidence.

This is partly true. If we didn't believe in the Government's magical powers, then its claim to be able to limit our rights and subsequent freedoms would be treated as the risible nonsense it is. 

The deceptive language is the verb: the Government’s claim that it "wants" to protect our fundamental rights. Even if we set aside the consideration that government has no say over our fundamental rights, the rest of the UK Government's proposal reveals this statement to be a lie in all other respects too.

We get the first hint at where the Government is heading with this envisaged New Bill of Rights with its claimed desire to safeguard the "public interest". The Government has decided that observing our rights is not in our interest. It defines the “public interest” and, in doing so, assumes the “additional right” to ignore our rights and freedoms as it pleases.

Citing a couple of extreme and frankly ridiculous examples of people exploiting the the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, an instrument of international law signed by the post-war UK Government and transposed decades later directly into UK statute law as the Human Rights Act) with obvious vexatious intent to cause the authorities problems, the UK Government has decided that these outliers constitute what it solemnly declares to be a "rights culture". It claims that this alleged rights culture has "displaced due focus on personal responsibility and the public interest".

A few prisoners causing as much mayhem as possible, within the law, is proof enough for the UK Government that all of us are morally inept. Therefore, we "need" to accept the Government's oxymoronic suggestion that our rights should be curtailed to protect the public interest

The allegation and claimed justification are preposterous, but so what? As long as it gets what it wants, why should the Government care?

The Government adds:

Whilst human rights are universal, a Bill of Rights could require the courts to give greater consideration to the behaviour of claimants and the wider public interest when interpreting and balancing qualified rights.

As discussed above, human rights are not rights, and if any statement ever illustrated that point, it is the one just cited. How can human rights be universal while some are "qualified rights"? Qualified by whom, and—as David Scott sought in vain to elicit from police last year—on what basis? The answer provided by the Government is shocking, but at least has the merit of honesty:

[T]he government believes that Parliament should authoritatively determine what is necessary in a democratic society. [. . .] In addition, it should be clear that, when a court is considering the proportionality of an interference with a person’s qualified rights, it will consider the extent to which the person has fulfilled their own relevant responsibilities.

Qualified rights are rights whose scope is whatever the state decrees from time to time. You may think you have the right to free speech, but if the Government thinks you are saying something it considers to be "irresponsible" or "inappropriate" or "harmful", such as speaking out about vaccine damage or questioning one of the Government’s proxy wars, your free speech has just become a "qualified right"—at which point, the Government's pet courts will take a dim view of your so-called human rights.

To hammer the message home, in its proposal the Government issued its directions to the "independent" courts on qualified rights:

The following clauses are for guiding the interpretation of qualified rights[.] Option 1 requires the court to give great weight to Parliament’s views on what is ‘necessary in a democratic society’ when determining whether legislation, or a decision of a public authority made in accordance with legislation, is compatible with the rights under the Bill of Rights.

The UK courts are largely an extension of state power anyway, but the UK Government, with its New Bill of Rights, with its talk of "clarifying" the separation of powers, is now closing the gap between the executive and judiciary to the imperceptible. The problem it has identified is that the public can occasionally enforce the few rights that the judiciary and juries still have the gumption to recognise. The UK Government does not like this at all:

[T]he courts have expanded the scope of human rights from protecting individuals to prescribing how public services must be delivered. [. . .] [T]he growth in such obligations comes without proper democratic oversight from Parliament or the benefit of public policy decisions taken in the broader public interest by those elected to do so. This has created a democratic deficit.

According to the UK Government, then, a "democratic deficit" emerges whenever the courts rule against the state—especially where the ruling contradicts the impossible, additional right that government has claimed for itself to define what is “good” for all: the so-called “public interest”. 

An independent judiciary is, therefore, anti-democratic in this novel scheme. Consequently, the Government is shoving through a New Bill of Rights that will ignore the actual Bill of Rights and democratic ideals entirely in order to save democracy from itself.


"Laws" nodded through

The use of secondary legislation has become increasingly beloved of the UK Government. Its burgeoning, century-long misuse is wholly undemocratic, which rather belies the Government's ludicrous pretensions of "protecting democracy".

Secondary legislation enables government ministers, using powers granted to them in corresponding Acts of Parliament ("primary legislation"), to pronounce so-called law with little or no parliamentary scrutiny. This is most often achieved in the form of Statutory Instruments (SIs). Parliament can technically approve or deny, but cannot amend, “affirmative” SIs.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) advises Parliament if it decides there is anything to be concerned about. However, the JCSI only hears evidence from the Government and only issues a recommendation to Parliament if it identifies an issue. Even this depends, of course, upon whatever the executive branch of government chooses to disclose to the JCSI. If the JCSI fails to see a problem with a given instrument, it is extremely unlikely that Parliament—the legislative branch of government—will see one either.

The vast majority of SIs (80%) are "made negative" and do not require any approval from Parliament. This means the instrument becomes law the moment the minister signs it, unless Parliament objects within forty days. Unsurprisingly, this is practically unheard-of. Law in modern Britain is habitually created by fiat without any notable parliamentary scrutiny at all.

Parliament explains the purpose of secondary legislation quite succinctly: 

[T]o fill in the details of Acts (primary legislation). These details provide practical measures that enable the law to be enforced and operate in daily life.

Motions to stop negative SIs are exceedingly rare, and the chances of a motion succeeding even more remote. The House of Commons last blocked one in 1979 and the House of Lords in 2000.

The UK Government really likes this despotic legal system. It can pass sprawling, incomprehensible, primary legislation without defining any of the most crucial precepts the new law is supposedly based upon. For example, the Government is almost certainly going to manage to pass the forthcoming Online Safety Act, but hasn't bothered to explain what key terms, such as "harm" or "disinformation," actually mean.

Parliament will rubber stamp the Online Safety Bill into law as an Act and will empower the executive (Crown ministers) subsequently to use negative SIs—which Members of Parliament won’t even read, let alone oppose, to add the meat to the bones of the legislation. The executive will prescribe whatever it, its favoured NGOs and its international "partners" wants to call "disinformation" or "harm" as it sees fit, whenever it chooses, using secondary legislation. 

Thus, the new law can “be enforced and operate in daily life” in the absence of any genuine parliamentary scrutiny or debate. This is just about as dictatorial as it gets, but that's the way government operates in reality.

As noted by the Independent Human Rights Act Review (IHRAR), the Government acknowledges the current ability of the courts to issue a "declaration of incompatibility", whereby they can find secondary legislation to be in contravention of the claimant's "human rights". The courts can effectively overrule secondary legislation, thus compelling the source of that instrument (the "parent legislation" or "primary legislation") to be amended:

[U]nder the law as it stands the courts can, amongst other things, declare secondary legislation invalid or disapply the provision in question.

The Government alleges that this is a real problem, though the IHRAR notes that the Government's assertion that the courts have adopted "an expansive approach" is totally unfounded. 

Undeterred, the Government insists that the courts needs to be told how to interpret an individual's rights. This will ensure that government edicts on whatever is "necessary in a democratic society" are steadfastly enforced:

We believe that section 3 [of the Human Rights Act] has resulted in an expansive approach with courts adapting legislation. We think that a less expansive interpretive duty would provide greater legal certainty. [. . .] We believe section 3 should be replaced by an alternative provision setting out clearly how to interpret legislation. [. . .]
Where legislation was ambiguous, and a meaning that could reasonably be attributed to it was compatible with the Convention [HRA] and other meanings were not, the compatible meaning would be preferred. [. . .] [T]he government is minded to codify the approach under primary legislation[.]

As the law currently stands, a citizen could—hypothetically, though barely in any practical sense—overturn the Government's authoritarian diktat in the courts if his alleged human rights were infringed. In recognition of that loophole, the UK Government's New Bill of Rights intends to snuff out that possibility once and for all.

The UK Government claims that this is all necessary to protect the public interest. By placing an authoritarian duty upon the courts, effectively to agree with whatever the executive decrees, government is claiming the non-existent right to define everyone's individual rights on a case-by-case basis. Dictatorship, in other words.


Welcome But Ineffectual Legal Opinion

The Law Society, the professional association of English solicitors (pre-trial lawyers), has issued a damning response to the Government's suggested reforms and to the consultation held regarding them. The lawyers write that they were unable to identify anything in the proposed New Bill of Rights other than a litany of prospective rights abuses and an attack upon individual freedoms. 

The Law Society found that the UK Government's plans would damage the rule of law, prevent access to justice, increase costs and complexity, and lead those who can afford it to take more cases to the European Court of Human Rights, while excluding those who cannot afford it from any realistic recourse to the law. In summation, they said:

[A] significant number of the proposals work to either reduce government accountability or to shield public bodies from it. This undermines a crucial element of the rule of law, preventing people from challenging illegitimate uses of power[.] [I]t is alarming that proposals include the removal of rights on a blanket basis from certain categories of individuals. Others would reduce protections or lead to an overall lowering of human rights standards[.] The proposed reforms contained in this consultation will have far-reaching impact for anyone seeking to enforce their rights and access human rights protections.

As often—this time in the form of the Law Society—we see an Establishment body that perceives abuses but can't, or won't, face the reality of what government is. Government neither serves the public nor upholds the rights of ordinary citizens. It exists to crush and exploit them for corporate profit; to bend the public to its will in the name of progress; and to oppress its population. Government has absolutely no interest in defending democracy, nor in fostering any kind of egalitarian meritocracy. It's a big club, and we aren't in it.

While the intervention of the Law Society is welcome, its solicitor members—perhaps for reasons of their own vested interest—do not offer any real solutions. Their recommendations all rely upon the reasonable forbearance of the corporate and political Establishment and its government. There is no evidence in modern Britain to suggest that such restraint exists. 

Government is not on our side, and it quite clearly means to rule us with an iron fist. Its proposed New Bill of Rights demonstrates the fact. 

The solutions will only come when we learn the lessons taught by the likes of Spooner, Larken Rose and Étienne de La Boétie. While we continue to implore this thing called government to be nice to us, we're lost. It will simply continue to tell itself to do as thou wilt.

We have equal, inalienable rights, and the Government has absolutely nothing of any value to say about them. The Government's opinion about our rights is irrelevant. No-one in government, in the judiciary, at the top of global corporations or international financial institutions has any more, nor fewer, rights that you or I.



We allow government to pretend that it has the power to determine our rights because we continue to fall for the deception of "human rights". If we wish to prosper and live in peace, we must resoundingly reject this malign deceit. When we do, the Government’s only remaining "power" will be to continue to abuse our inalienable rights—and all will see its actions for what they truly are. 

If government refuses to acknowledge our inalienable rights, then it is both opposed to humanity and has no wish to maintain "justice and peace in the world". Such an institution is a clear threat to our existence as a species.

We should use all the peaceable means at our disposal to reform government and to insist that it and its courts never breach natural law, natural justice or our inalienable rights. But, as frequently discussed by UK Column, our ability to engage in effective resistance, to lobby and protest, campaign and speak without censorship, is also currently being removed by the Government.

Violence is both morally indefensible and counter-productive when we are faced with a political system that operates and thrives on the use of force. So what are we to do when preyed upon by tyrannical governments opposed to peace? 

Perhaps the answers may be found in the wisdom of those legal philosophers who have faced this seemingly eternal dilemma before:

[W]hen a nation is constrained by the fortune of war to serve a single clique [. . .] one should not be amazed that the nation obeys, but simply be grieved by the situation. [. . .] But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? [. . .] To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? [. . .] They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army [. . .] but from a single little man. [. . .] [T]his cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth[.] [. . .] What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice[?] [. . .]
Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing[.] [. . .] [I]f not one thing is yielded to them, if, without any violence they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing[.] [. . .] I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces[.]

Étienne de La Boétie, The Politics of Obedience, 1552/3

Friday 29 September 2023

Niger welcomes new era as France leaves the country 9/25





Thursday 28 September 2023

Scottish Wind Farm Accused of Using Net Zero Loophole to Make £647 Million


Think tank alleges that consumers have overpaid hundreds of millions of pounds for wind energy through legal means.
Consumers have overpaid by millions of pounds for energy from Moray East wind farm in northeast Scotland via a legal net zero loophole, according to the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF).
REF, which is critical of wind farm expansion, has alleged that the wind farm took advantage of the loophole as well as a scheme where it gets paid when not making electricity.

On its website the Moray Offshore Windfarm (East), known as Moray East and comprising 100 9.5 megawatt (MW) turbines located off the northeast coast of Scotland, describes itself as a “highly competitive offshore wind project."

It is joint owned Diamond Green Limited, CTG, and Ocean Winds. The site was at one point Scotland’s largest operational wind farm.

Critics say that while the farm has "acted entirely legally," the loophole shows that the "myth of cheap wind energy has been gradually unravelling."

'Very Very Profitable'

REF said that the wind farm is "notable for its extremely high levels of income, over £1 billion since it began generating in June 2021 and up to July 2023," and that it has two "very very profitable source of incomes."

It said that it had "with a strikingly high average of £234 per megawatt hour generated, well in excess of the average price of £168/MWh, received by gas-fired generators in the same period."

It said that this was down to Contract for Difference (CfD) contracts and constraint payments.

REF said that Moray East wind farm got a CfD contract in 2012, meaning they would receive a certain amount of money for their electricity, and that amount wouldn't change no matter what happened in the electricity market.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson onboard the Esvagt Alba during a visit to the Moray Offshore Wind Farm East, off the Aberdeenshire coast, during his visit to Scotland on Aug. 5, 2021. (Jane Barlow - WPA Pool/Getty Images)
Prime Minister Boris Johnson onboard the Esvagt Alba during a visit to the Moray Offshore Wind Farm East, off the Aberdeenshire coast, during his visit to Scotland on Aug. 5, 2021. (Jane Barlow - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

However, it said that Moray East has not implemented its CfD, preferring to take "the much higher market prices prevailing in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine."

As a result of this, Moray East received £812 million in electricity sales since coming online in summer 2021.

It also noted the wind farm has received constraint payments for cutting its output at times when its electricity cannot be used locally or transmitted to other areas of the country because of grid congestion.

This, it claims, means that Moray East earned more per MWh when not generating electricity than when generating and selling normally.

'Multitude and Complexity'

"The UK’s approach to renewables has resulted in unjustifiably high costs to consumers, but the multitude and complexity of the revenue streams available to generators has concealed this fact. There are two issues that government needs to address immediately," wrote REF.

Harry Wilkinson, head of policy from the think tank Net Zero Watch, told The Epoch Times by email, “The myth of cheap wind energy has been gradually unravelling, but the sorry story of the Moray East wind farm has put the nail in the coffin."

"Rather than provide cheap clean energy as had been promised, the operators have exploited an energy crisis to rake in hundreds of millions of pounds from ordinary Britons," he said.

"What has been most egregious, however, is the way in which civil servants have allowed this to happen. A loophole in green energy contracts has meant the wind farm has acted entirely legally—this could quite easily have been avoided,” he added.

'Not in the Spirit of the Scheme'

The UK government claims that electricity systems around the world use the constraint payment model.
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokeswoman told The Epoch Times by email that the "vast majority of Contracts for Difference projects paid back into the scheme when energy prices were at their highest last year—helping keep energy bills lower for consumers."

“It is not in the spirit of the scheme for generators to delay their start date to increase revenue. We have made changes to the scheme to ensure this is not possible for projects from Round 5 and beyond," she said.

“As well as investing billions in new energy projects, we will also upgrade our grid infrastructure to bring that power to households and businesses,” she added.

A spokesman for Ocean Winds told The Telegraph, “Moray East remains on course to start its CfD within the contractual terms set by the process and has always acted in accordance with this agreement.”

The Epoch Times has contacted Ocean Winds for further comment.

Wednesday 27 September 2023

Bluetooth Signal Report



Pepper Anderson

Dita Von Kittie

Meri Sillitoe



Background information on the topic and how I decided to start the investigation:

During the course of general internet research, I came across the “Bluetooth challenge”, which I 

later found out also went by the title The MAC address phenomenon. To clarify before we go any 

further, MAC addresses are not referring to Apple MACs. MAC in this case stands for Media Access 

Control. Full disclosure; we aren’t research scientists and knew we would be working without lab 

conditions and because we had to be covert, our movements were going to be restricted in terms 

of where we could perform these tests. We were aware that we were about to embark on trying to 

prove something that would affect the mental health of a lot of people and conversely annoy a lot 

of people in high places if our findings were taken seriously by anybody who happened upon 

them. We felt the population had a right to make their own decisions with all possible knowledge 

and information.

In my research I found Video number 1:

It was the first time I had ever heard anything that could have been linking up with reports that 

were coming out about nanotech in the Covid19 vaccinations. I then did a wider spread search and

found two other videos that jumped out, videos 2: and 3:

The fact that 3 separate content makers had decided to mention this subject matter led me to go 

back to the first video to see if I could replicate it. I went back to video 1, to take more detailed 

notes to enable me to replicate the test. I went through sections of the video, screen by screen to 

be able to take on-board the App used, the settings required to make it work and the type of 

device used (in case there was any other technology helping facilitate, besides a mobile smart 

phone). Please go to the METHODS section of this report for a detailed How To guide. 

I followed what I believed to be the correct procedure and ‘hey presto’ to my fright it was 

happening. I was watching my neighbors walking around in their houses, neighbors up the road 

watching their Samsung TV as all 3 were roughly the same distance away and only 0.5 meters 

difference in range. We also had a strange anomaly where two MAC Address would move around 

really fast and pretty much always together. I noted it a few times and then realised one time it 

was the dogs who must be chipped because we knew who was in our neighbor’s house at the time.

I conducted a couple more covert confirmation tests using known vaccinated and vaccine free 

parties to prove to myself whether I was picking up just the vaccinated. All tests proved that I 

needed to take a closer more scientific approach to this phenomenon. The 4th video came to our 

attention half way through testing.

Here are links to all the videos I am referring to:-

1st video

2nd video

3rd video

4th video


Before I go into a step-by-step guide of how to set up and start this test. The limitations of this test 

are as follows; How modern the device is you are using, how up to date your software is and how 

good the apps are should go off piste in your own personal choice of app. And also recognising 

that the environments features and furniture could play a part in inhibiting any results given. 

Purely based on the unknown nature of the materials in said environment amplifying or hiding 

information. Basic step by step instructions for both user groups on how to set yourself up before 

conducting a test are set out below. When activating the settings give them a chance to activate 

and start reading the environment. Once you are confident doing it, get a mate to record you while

you record the events happening in front of you. Our research was conducted mainly with Android 

OS operated phones with the benefit of having access to the PLAY store and open-source apps. But

it can be done for the most part on your iPhone. Apart from having your phone of choice. You will 

want access to data or an internet connection, Bluetooth capabilities, phone location, PLAY store, 

F-droid (foss) or App Store account and an up-to-date operating system of the phone you are 

running and the ability where possible to unlock your Developer Mode, not a deal breaker but it 

will help.

Android Users

Unlocking Android Developer mode instructions: 

STEP 1: Open phone and go to Settings > About Phone. 

STEP 2: Tap Software Info > Build Number. 

STEP 3: Tap Build Number seven times, the number of taps can vary from phone to phone. After 

the first few taps, you should see the steps counting down until you unlock and reach the 

promised land of developer options. For security reasons you’ll probably also have to tap in your 

PIN for verification. 

STEP 4: Once developer options are activated, you will see a message that reads, You are now a 


STEP 5: Return to the Settings screen, where you will now find Developer options as an entry. 

Normally near the bottom of the list. Sometimes under the Advanced option selection. 

STEP 6: Tap it and toggle the switch on if it is not already, and from there, you can proceed to 

make adjustments to your phone. You can unlock the developer options on any Android 

smartphone or tablet by locating the build number in your Settings menu and tapping it multiple 

times. Please keep in mind, that I do not know the exact location of the aforementioned build 

number and it will vary depending on your phone’s manufacturer. On phones running older 

Android OS versions than Android 10. Look for About Phone menu under Settings > System > 

About Phone. All the other steps above are the same. 

STEP 7: Open up Developer options, scroll down. Some of you might be able to type Default USB 

Configuration into the search bar and zoom down to part of the list you need to be looking in. But 

if you want to survey your new list of things to control on your Android phone, scroll until you find 

“Show Bluetooth Devices Without Names”. A small paragraph under it will say “be able to see MAC 

address’s” or something like that. Engage this setting. When this setting is running and you try 

looking for “pairable devices” you will now be able to see through your phones own Bluetooth 

pairing screen, all these nameless MAC address.

Android Apps used for the tests. Any screen recorder android app from Play store or F-droid will 

suffice. Ethay Tam’s Bluetooth scanner app from the Play store. My app preferences are ones that 

aren’t going to give away my life story to the people who made the app. For Android phones, the 

reason I chose to engage developer mode in the android set up was to be able to run the phone’s 

own Bluetooth scanning capabilities and said chosen app side by side when running the tests. This

gives you the ability to be able to flick between what the phone was originally deregulated down 

to (just looking for parable devices like your ear phones, BT speaker, possibly your TV and other 

phones) Vs what it can actually do once that protocol is disengaged. This also will give you a clean 

dividing line between the standard “what is available normally to scan” and Bluetooth/MAC 

Address phenomenon I am discussing in this paper. Learning to use this feature will help just in 

case you get any confusion over cross contaminating signals that you think you might or might not

be picking up. Plus, with added abilities you get from working with the Bluetooth scanning app, 

you can cross reference distance away from your position from certain Bluetooth signals you are 

picking up and can correlate them to moving entities picked up on your screen. How you engage 

all of these setting will be down to how well you know your own phone. As Android is open source, 

pretty much all the steps I have mention are the same for most Android OS’s. 

Pre-test checks. First turn on your phone’s location setting to ‘ON’. Then turn on your Bluetooth 

with a long depress to get you to your Bluetooth “find new devices” page. Engage find new 

devices. Then turn on the Bluetooth scanning app. While in the Bluetooth scanning app. Select any

old signal you are seeing. You will then get into what I nick named the vitals screen of that signal. 

Tap the ‘distance’ reading and then go back to the main scan reading screen. Signals should now 

read as a distance away from your position. I at this stage will close down any other apps I don’t 

want seen in a screen recoded video. Once happy start the screen recorder app.

iPhone Users When researching how to unlock developer mode on an iPhone, it would appear 

that Apple have deliberately made this task very off putting and a big commitment for those who 

choose to enter it, but for the purposes of fairness for this experiment I list how to do it. There 

appears to be two ways of doing it dependent on operating systems. For the benefit of everyone 

reading this I went to

iphone-and-ipad/ by Kerem Gülen, because Android is what I am most familiar with and ISO isn’t 

my first language. What I have pasted here is what they kindly gave to everyone on the internet in 

one of their articles:

How to enable developer mode on iPhone and iPad in iOS 12 or later?

· Connect your iPhone Xs, iPhone Xs Max, and iPhone Xr or iPad on iOS 12 to your Mac or PC 

with a lightning cable

· Press and hold the Home and Power buttons at the same time for at least 10 seconds on 

your iPhone or iPad

· Release the Power button while holding the Home button

· Then hold the button start for 10 additional seconds

· Release the button Start and wait for your screen to turn black, indicating that your iPhone

Xs, Xs iPhone, and iPhone Max Xr have entered restart mode Firmware Update Device 

(DFU) for iPhone

iTunes has detected an iPhone in recovery mode

When iTunes opens, a pop-up message will appear saying: “iTunes has detected an iPhone in 

recovery mode. You must restore iPhone or iPad in iOS 11 /iOS 12 before you can use it with 


In addition to the message stating that iTunes has detected an iPhone in recovery mode, your 

iPhone or iPad screen should also turn black, confirming that you have successfully booted your 

device into Developer Mode.

To use developer mode, you must have a Mac computer and Xcode software. You can use the Mac 

or Xcode to turn on the Developer mode on your iPhone. Here’s how to enable developer mode on 

your iPhone.

How to enable developer mode on iPhone and iPad: Using Xcode

You can also enable developer mode on an iPhone by using Xcode. However, this is a longer 

process, and you need a Mac computer. But if you also need to use Xcode, this will be two birds 

with one stone, so follow these steps…

How to download and install Xcode to Mac?

Before utilizing the developer options on an iPhone, you must start downloading the Apple Xcode 

application on the system. You can only download and install Xcode to a Mac because this 

software is limited to use on a Mac.

· Open your web browser and go to Apple’s Developer Downloads webpage.

· After entering the login credentials, you should be able to access the developer window. 

To log in to the developer window, use your Apple ID and a secure password that has been 

registered with Apple.

· If you haven’t already logged in by entering the Apple account email and password, you 

must now type in the confirmation code. This code may also be used on an iPhone or 

another device where you are signed in with your Apple ID.

· Tap the Download option near the Xcode app’s title. Press the Download option given 

under Xcode release notes below the “Release Software” option.

· After that, you will be sent to the App Store Preview page on the new interface. Select View 

in Mac App Store from the drop-down menu. This option may be found on the right side 

beneath the Xcode symbol in the left column of the browsing software window.

· Select the Open App Store choice from the drop-down list. On the App Store screen, you’ll 

see an Xcode app.

· Tap the Get button. It’s the one with the Xcode symbol in the upper left corner of the App 

Store window. The Install App option becomes an olive color. Select Install App from the 

drop-down menu.

How to install and enable Xcode on Mac?

· Launch the Xcode application installed on the Mac using the search or app list.

· Now connect your iPhone to the Mac. Using a USB cable, you can easily pair your iPhone to

the Mac.

· Next, you should go to the Settings application on your iPhone.

· Scroll down until you see the Developer option and tap on it.

· New iOS 16 Developer Mode

There is a new Developer Mode in iOS 16 and watchOS 9. Users who have access to developer 

mode on their phones will be able to install apps immediately through Configurator, as long as 

they declare that they are developers. This may signify what will be necessary to use third-party 

app stores later.

Developers can now develop, publish, and distribute iOS apps on their iPhones for testing. 

Developers can give customers the option of using TestFlight to try out the app before release. 

Now Apple has introduced a new thing between these two, suggesting that Developer Mode may 

be a step toward allowing third-party applications on iPhone in the future.

In a new developer document, Apple said, “Developer Mode, introduced in iOS 16 and watchOS 9, 

protects people from inadvertently installing potentially harmful software on their devices and 

reduces attack vectors exposed by developer-only functionality.” The document continues, “The 

feature doesn’t affect standard installation techniques like buying apps from the App Store or 

participating in a TestFlight team. Instead, Developer Mode focuses on scenarios like performing a 

Build and Run in Xcode, or installing an .ipa file with Apple Configurator.”

So the thing we understand from this document is that the apps distributed outside of the App 

Store will be in this .ipa format.

Apple says in the document, “In these cases, the device explicitly asks the person using it to 

confirm that they’re a developer aware of the risks of installing development-signed software.”

Opening Developer Mode requires a user to go through several steps, including rebooting the 

device and accepting numerous warnings. It’s not the case that a bad actor can turn it on and 

install harmful apps. If Apple’s new choice is a step towards an alternative future with third-party 

app stores, the company isn’t giving up on its effort to keep control.

Is it safe to enable developer mode?

There is no technical or security problem with developer settings enabled on your iPhone or iPad. 

The reason why they are usually disabled is that they aren’t important for regular users, and some 

of the options can be dangerous if used incorrectly. Developer settings include features that allow 

you to change how your device works, which is why they can be dangerous. For example, you can 

use the Settings app to enable or disable USB Restricted Mode. If you disable this setting, anyone 

with physical access to your device will be able to connect it to a computer and access your data. 

So if you’re not a developer, we recommend that you leave the developer settings on your device.

What can developer mode do?

Developer mode on your iPhone or iPad gives you access to additional settings meant for 

developers. These settings can change how your device works, and they can be dangerous if used 

incorrectly. For example, you can use the Settings app to enable or disable USB Restricted Mode. If

you disable this setting, anyone with physical access to your device will be able to connect it to a 

computer and access your data. So if you’re not a developer, we recommend that you leave the 

developer settings on your device.

Can I enable developer mode without being a developer?

No, you do not need to be a registered developer with Apple to enable the Developer Mode 

settings. This setting is for people developing apps for iOS, and it’s not meant for regular users. But

sometimes, as a regular user, you might need to enable developer options on your iPhone or iPad 

to make a little unusual modification.

Will developer options drain my device’s battery?

If you are confident in using your device’s developer options, you may turn off animations. 

Animations look nice while using your phone and help to highlight important information, but 

they can slow down performance and drain battery life. They do, however, need Developer Mode 

to be enabled, so it’s not for beginner-level users.

iPhone Apps used for the tests

Any screen recorder app from the Apple iPhone App Store will do. I used Screen Recorder by 

Longwind Studio. A Bluetooth scanner app is also required. There are many to choose from on the 

App Store and they vary in what information they provide during a scan. I used BLE Scanner, 

Bluetooth BLE Device Finder and xBluetooth.

I was unable to unlock developer mode on my iPhone, so I just used the Bluetooth scanning apps 

to search for Bluetooth signals. Each app gave different information such as signal strength, device

name or estimated distance. The estimated distance and signal strength are affected by a number 

of factors such as the presence of objects in between the phone and device being scanned. This 

can cause false distance readings as the signal strength is reduced by the interference of other 

objects or by other unknown factors. I found that I couldn’t rely on the distance readings to be 

very accurate when searching for Bluetooth signals. For example, I performed a scan using the 

xBluetooth app and it picked up my Apple Watch as being within 0.5 metres. This was correct as I 

was wearing the watch. However, I then stretched my arm out, away from my phone and the 

distance reading jumped to 7 metres. My arm is not that long so clearly the reading was incorrect 

and should be considered only a rough guide. I would suggest that engaging developer mode on 

the iPhone, as described above, or simply using an android device may provide better results than 

what can be achieved with an iPhone.

Pre-test checks. iPhone users will need to close down unwanted apps before commencing use of 

the screen recorder app. After beginning the screen recording, select the Bluetooth scanner app 

and commence scanning.

Video excerpts of two iPhone app readings for you to thumb through to get the idea of thing you 

will see. 

BT MAC phenomenon iPhone taster footage (


The candidates who were covertly and openly studied in the locations we chose, we were 99.9% 

confident of their Vaccinated and Vaccine free status at the time of testing. Our definition of 

Vaccination Status for this test was ‘have you had’ at least one Covid 19 jab from any of the 

providers of these vaccines. Or ‘have you not had’ any Covid 19 jabs from any of the providers of 

these vaccines. Going into any greater detail about the amount of vaccinations or boosters an 

individual has had verses how potent your Bluetooth signal/MAC address phenomenon is, is for a 

more in-depth controlled study once everyone is convinced of our findings and the subject can be 

spoken about more openly with candidates involved. The main factors we kept in mind when 

setting out our tests were; We had to know where all the mobile phones were so we could ring 

fence any contaminating signals or allow for them in the individual test results. Knowing the 

participants vaccination status. Knowing of any Bluetooth devices that were on in the 

environment we were conducting our tests in. The ideal results we hoped to find were that we had 

been completely wrong and had imagined that people had been emitting Bluetooth signals. What 

we hoped to actually find was any conclusive evidence to say we were right or wrong with our 

initial fact-finding missions. That sparked the question that drove us to writing this paper. What I 

believe we found was that people that have had at least one of the Covid 19 vaccination jabs are 

emitting a Low Energy Bluetooth signal that can be picked up on something as simple as your 

mobile phone. We hope that others will replicate this test to gather further evidence and explore 

this further. Please keep in mind the mental health of those who might be shocked to discover 

they emit a Low Energy Bluetooth signal. And also, your own mental health. Prepare yourself if you

chose to scan someone you love. We are not looking to hurt anyone. Simply to gather information 

and understand what the MAC phenomenon is all about. Below you will see the descriptions and 

links of the 4 tests that were conducted and shot on a screen recorder app.

1st test.

This is going to be showing what I had been seeing at work under my testing of the theory of the 

Bluetooth Challenge/MAC phenomenon test. To set up what you will be looking at; The Blue 

coloured screen is the scanner app and me adjusting it to the distance reading rather than the 

signal strength reading. Every test that you will see after this follows the same format.

The Black with green accents screen is my own phone’s Bluetooth menu, (developer mode 

engaged). What I will not able to convey enough is that all the 0.0..... meter readings is making my 

phone vibrate in my hand when I press on the individual signals. As you will see there are lots of 

them. You can distinguish between named devices that appear and the faceless mac addresses. 

The day is a half term holiday session where my place of work is full of staff and kids. I chose this 

setting because I am able to know where all the phones are, as we forbid phones in session with 

the children. I know where and what the Bluetooth devices are and also, I know my site’s 

approximate dimensions so can remove anything outside a certain perimeter. It was half way 

through a session at the moment I ran the test as I knew phones wouldn’t be moving around in 

session because they were in staff lockers. As you will see on the screen recording you will see all 

the distances move in relatively real time, just on the other side of my office door. As I said phones 

are forbidden in session. So, this test was conducted from just the other side of my office door. I 

am roughly in the middle of my site/compound. What you will see is staff and I hope beyond hopes

that the others are not children, but I do look after/work with a lot of medically vulnerable 

children. But I think you are watching staff and child movement. Hopefully this all makes sense. 

Participants; I believe there was at least 46 people present on site. 3 confirmed as Vaccine free. We 

can safely assume due to how we operate there are 21 staff, 21 kids and 3 in the session 

management team and 1 on an admin job. 23 of the 46 people on site show up on this test. Please 

make note that I am picking up a Versa motor vehicle at close quarters as well.

0.01-2 Meters away from my position is right on the other side of my office door, is inside the main 

corridor of the building. Anything at 2-10 meters away is roughly play happening across the 

building area in various sized rooms. Anything within 25-27 meters on the reading is staff and kids 

playing on site in the outside areas. Anything outside that will be the public going past the 

perimeter fence.

2nd test.

This is my one of my partner’s work places. Like before with the first screen shot video test, we are 

following the same format and set up; Blue screen app/white screen on this phone’s Bluetooth 

reader. But we decided to show you what happens when you don’t turn on the Developer Mode. 

So, you can see what your phone would be normally looking for when it is in its regular Bluetooth 

mode. We agreed on this setting because it is another controllable environment. We know where 

the mobiles are (the staff room as they aren’t allowed in the actual work environment). We know 

where and who the people are walking around. From nurses, reception staff and patients. What 

you will not see is that my partner chose to do this test with one of the known non-vaccinated 

practitioners in the room, right in front of them and only about a foot away and nobody registers 

anywhere at 0.0???? Meters at any point in the test. Participants, Total of 17 people present in the 

test. 6 staff. 2 are vaccine free the other 4 are confirmed as vaccinated. 1 patient, 10 that appear 

from around the outside of the building. 1 of the 10 was a motor vehicle.

As alluded to above, Bluetooth address LMU 467 that appears first up. Upon some research. I 

believe is a car/vehicle tracking device made by Cal amp. Between 0 secs and 42-43 secs are 

people inside the practice. At 3.55M is reception, 3.89M is going to be a patient, 1M away is a nurse 

in the next room, 7.08M is a nurse in another surgery. 15.85M is outside the practice. You now have 

the rough parameters to work with. From 43 seconds onwards it was decided that we have enough

evidence of the controlled environment. To convey the difference between the two styles of 

environments they decided to turn to the window and direct the phone out of the surgery and just 

aim into the supermarket carpark below. As the video illustrates. Quite a few Mac address just 

start appearing. Note what the white screen is showing at the end of the video, no developer mode

set. So, you can see the lack of information present and your phone only trying to find pairable 

devices i.e. what your phone is pre-set to do. Which is why a lot of people fail doing this test as 

they didn’t know what to engage.

As you recall from 1st video where I had developer mode engaged my phone could see shed loads 

of signals as well as the app.

3rd test.

Like before with the first and second screen shot video test. We are following the same format and 

set up, blue screen app/black screen phones Bluetooth reader. For the third test I attended a well-

known event that happens up and down the country and is by and large attended by Vaccine free 

people but its not an entry requirement but a chance to come and hang out with likeminded 

individuals. I know that my group happens to be completely vaccine free. Participants, total 24 

people present in the test. 12 confirmed vaccine free, 12 others that happened to be in the same 

grounds we were in and 1 mobile phone. I could not detect any of the self-proclaimed vaccine free,

12 strong group who had turned up for the group event that morning. It came up in conversation. I 

Then asked if everyone wanted to take part in my proposed experiment to prove we aren't all 

crazy. Everyone was unanimously game. So, I explained what we would be looking for and showed

them my screen as I recorded what we did. I said this should be the most boring test I will do and if 

I am right you all will not appear on my scanner at 0.01 meters to 4-4.5 meters away from this 

position, or if I am wrong and any of us show up I have been very wrong with my previous 


We were about a 4 to 4.5 meter squarish group so anything out side that distance is everyone else 

who was in the grounds at the same time we were. You will notice nobody appears at 0.0?????? 

meters away from my position at any point during the video.

First thing of note I am picking up a phone of the person standing next to me as they accidently 

had it on. I kept it in there as I thought it was a good way to demonstrate a pairable device next to 

a nameless MAC address for anyone out there wanting to say I am just picking up people’s phones. 

I was also able to prove the point that I could teach people, who had no real tech savvy, what I was

doing as I went along and then had them doing it for themselves minutes later.

4th test.

Like before with the first, second and third screen shot video test. We are following the same 

format and set up; Blue screen app/black screen phone’s Bluetooth reader. What you see next is 

what happens when you don’t do a controlled test and you let the horse bolt out of the stable. I 

couldn't resist being in the middle of a crowded market town 40 mins away from where I live and 

turn the Bluetooth app on and just to see what happened in this busy morning time market. 

Participants, Way too many to even start naming. I didn’t think after this video test I needed to do 

anymore tests because the information is so over whelming that it would be massively impressive 

to fake.

To set the scene I am waiting for my partners to finish using the public toilets. Within 100meters, in

front of me is the market area and shops between me and where I stand. Directly in front on me, 

0.05 is a live road and I am being constantly passed by people and cars. Within 20 meters either 

side are shops, a tea room and supermarket. Behind me is a wall. You will note that my app can't 

keep up near the end due the number of signals I scrolled down through. It will also show my 

partners don't register when they come and stand next to me. E.g. 0.01 meters away from my 

position. This test also perfectly illustrates seeing Bluetooth devices, named devices and random 

MAC addresses just walking around in front of me. Sorry if I scroll to quickly in this test. I was trying

to collect as much data as was being thrown out there.

1st test BT MAC Phenomenon (

2nd Test BT MAC Phenomenon (

3rd Test BT MAC Phenomenon (

4th Test BT MAC Phenomenon. No control measures in place. (




Bitchuter 321

The Brand23

Jim Crenshaw


DroidRec by Egor Yakovlev: on board screen recorder.

Bluetooth Scanner by Ethay Tam.


Nothing other than wanting to know the truth.


No funding sought or received. The motivation to conduct the tests was the personal interest of 

the authors writing this paper.


Kerem Gulen Author of the How to iPhone guide

Meri Sillitoe

Dita Von Kittie

Pepper Anderson