The Incredible Disappearing Test & Trace Parliamentary Answer

Yesterday Green MP Caroline Lucas received a written ministerial answer from the Department for Health and Social Care in response to her question on a contract awarded to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) on test and trace, which the media had reported included paying individual consultants £7,000 per day. (“Test-and-trace consultants are being paid £7,000 a day,” The Times, 15 October 2020; www.thetimes.co.uk/article/test-and-trace-consultants-are-being-paid-7-000-a-day-ngl8vlqvw; “Coronavirus: Gove defends £7,000 day rate for test-and-trace consultants,” Sky News, 18 October 2020; https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-gove-defends-7-000-day-rate-for-test-and-trace-consultants-12107394) It took the department three months to produce the reply. The Parliamentary rule of thumb is an answer should normally be provided within five working days. On 11th November, nearly three weeks after asking her original question, Caroline Lucas asked the Health Secretary Matt Hancock, when he planned to answer the original question that had been tabled (submitted) on 16 October 2020 on BCG. Junior health minister, Edward Argar, replied on 30 November: “We take parliamentary scrutiny incredibly seriously and it is fundamentally important that hon. Members are provided with accurate and timely information to enable them to hold Government to account. We are working rapidly to provide all Members with accurate answers to their questions, as well as supporting the Government’s response to the unprecedented challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic.” He closed by adding “The hon. Member’s (Lucas) question will be answered as soon as possible.(https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-11-11/114133) In between Dr Lucas asking this clarification questi0on and getting an answer, at Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday 25 November 2020 (Hansard at Column 818), Labour Leader Keir Starmer asked the following pertinent question: “Where do I start on this one? Last week, we learned that suppliers with political connections were 10 times more likely to be awarded Government contracts, and this week The Sunday Times reports that the Health Secretary appointed one of his closest friends to a key advisory role. This friend also is a major shareholder, as it happens, in a firm that specialises in lobbying the Government on behalf of its clients, and some of those clients have secured tens of millions of pounds of Government contracts during the pandemic. Was the Prime Minister aware of this apparent conflict of interest? Prime Minister Boris Johnson answered, saying, inter alia, “In so far as there are any conflicts of interest, they will be evident from the publication of all the details of all the contracts.” (https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-11-25/debates/FA145A50-F2C7-45C7-8CEF-51F0B5AF23D3/Engagements) A week later, Mr Argar appeared before the House of Commons Procedure Committee to explain why his department had been so late in answering correspondence from MPs and PQs (https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/126/procedure-committee/news/136919/committee-questions-minister-on-department-of-health-performance-in-answering-parliamentary-questions/). He said to the committee there were some 1500 written PQs that were still late being answered by Health ministers. The average delay peaked at 14.8 days in October, it rose to 20 days in November, and by early December had dropped again 13.3 days (https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1405/html/) But Dr Lucas had to wait another 42 further days, on top of the delay to that date to receive her reply. Her specific question had been: “To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, for what reasons Boston Consulting Group (BCG) was chosen as a contractor to conduct consultancy work on test and trace; on what date the contract was signed; whether it was signed under special pandemic powers that bypass normal tendering processes; what the value is of the BCG contract; what the process was for agreeing the day rates in that contract; whether he plans to publish the BCG contract in line with Government procurement rules that Departments must publish a contract award notice within 30 days of agreement; and if he will make a statement?”(https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-10-16/104712) Junior Heath minister, Helen Whately - not Mr Argar for some reason- was the minister chosen to substantively respond. She said: “Boston Consultancy Group are an approved supplier on the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) framework contract. They gained their place on the framework through fair and open competition via an Official Journal of the European Union procurement. Value for money and capability were part of the assessment criteria. The contract award date was 24 April 2020 and the contract start date was 27 April 2020. The pay rates of individual consultants engaged from each supplier is commercially sensitive information. Payment rates are as per the CCS rate card with discounts attained depending on value and length of role. All the Departmental COVID-19 contracts are published on the GOV.UK Contract Finder Service, which contains information on the award criteria for each individual contract.” (emphasis added) It does not seem such a very complicated answer that would demand three months of brain work of civil servants and a minister to compile. It is also inaccurate! I visited the Government’s Contract Finder site, to find out the details of this particular contract that they had deemed able to be made public. The answer turns out to be absolutely nothing. The contract is not included at all in the BCG contracts. Below is the full list of BCG contracts listed since April 2020, the month n which Ms Whately claims the BCG contract was awarded. It does not appear! So much for the inordinate three month delay - to reveal absolutely nothing. Astonishing and depressing. https://bidstats.uk/tenders/?q=boston+consulting+group&scope=supplier UK – Boston Consulting Group Contracts Filters: Refine Supplier report Found 32 notices in past year. December 2020 Department of Health & Social Care • Enablement Strategy award: Boston Consulting Group £357K Department of Health & Social Care DHSC Test & Trace • Programme Support to TTCE Area Phase 3 award: Boston Consulting Group £6.3M • 4PL and Lab Operational Support award: Boston Consulting Group £1.6M November 2020 Cabinet Office Cabinet Office • Retrospective award: Boston Consulting Group £693K Department of Health & Social Care • Boston Consulting Group - Mass Testing Strategic Support award: Boston Consulting Group £4.6M • Boston Consulting Group - Strategic Delivery award: Boston Consulting Group £2.8M • End to End Operational Process award: Boston Consulting Group £630K October 2020 Cabinet Office Cabinet Office • Consultancy Task Force award: Boston Consulting Group £1.6M Department for International Trade • Defend Phase 2 award: Boston Consulting Group £2.4M • Defend Phase 2 award: Boston Consulting Group £2.4M September 2020 Health Family • Strategic Support for the COVID-19 Test, Track and Trace Programme award: Boston Consulting Group £5M Health Family • Digital Support for NHS Test & Trace Service award: Boston Consulting Group £5M August 2020 DCLG • Test, Track and Trace - PMO Support award: Boston Consulting Group LPP £355K DEFRA Network Etendering Portal • Support - Defra PEL 006C award: Boston Consulting Group £458K • Support - Defra PEL 006C award: Boston Consulting Group £458K • Support - Defra PEL 006C award: Boston Consulting Group £458K • Support - Defra PEL 033C award: Boston Consulting Group £437K Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy • UK Vaccine Taskforce - Advisory Support on Manufacturing Strategy & Delivery award: Boston Consulting Group £731K Homes England the Name Adopted by the Homes & Communities Agency • Homes England - CCS MCF - Transformation Business Case and Set-Up - BCG award: Boston Consulting Group £6.1M Department for International Development • Accelerated COVID Economic Support (ACES) award: Boston Consulting Group £4.5M July 2020 MOD • MOD Professional Services Support - FOR award: Boston Consulting Group June 2020 Crown Commercial Service • Cabinet Office Consultancy Support for EU Exit award: Boston Consulting Group Department for International Trade • Project Defend - Phase 1 Supply Chain Resilience for Non-Food Critical Items award: Boston Consulting Group £663K May 2020 Cabinet Office Cabinet Office • Consultancy for COP26 Support award: Boston Consulting Group £984K March 2020 Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust UHCW University Hospitals • 200000000.00 award: 57 suppliers £200M • Consultancy and Advisory Services award: 45 suppliers £100M • Consultancy and Advisory Services award: 19 suppliers £25M Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust UHCW University Hospitals • Consultancy and Advisory Services award: 24 suppliers £25M Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government • Grenfell Site Programme - Strategic Consulting Services award: Boston Consulting Group £5M Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust UHCW University Hospitals • Consultancy and Advisory Services award: 19 suppliers £30M

Was fugitive virus from Wuhan Institute of Virology research cause of worldwide COVID19 pandemic?

A year ago tomorrow the National Health Service saved my life in a near six hour bowel cancer operation at St. Helier Hospital (https://www.epsom-sthelier.nhs.uk/) in Sutton, around fifteen minutes’ drive from my home. I will be eternally grateful to the surgeons, doctors, nurses and other hospital support staff. While I lay in bed recuperating, I recall watching on my tv an odd story from far away China, a report from a city called Wuhan ( with 12 million residents) of which I had never heard. The report was of a mysterious virus that had swept through the city, and the emergency action taken by the city authorities, including the construction of a brand new giant hospital in a week. The day-to-day progress was beamed back to the UK, as first bulldozers cleared the site; then giant cranes were positioned on the concrete base, then the walls went up, and the inside was kitted out with medical equipment. I wondered what was it about this virus that demanded such urgent action? And I a vaguely recalled an earlier viral outbreak in China, called SARS, from 17 years earlier. After leaving hospital, I began to watch intently – and with increasing alarm - this developing story, as the virus escaped China and spread across the world. How did this fugitive virus escape into Wuhan? The official story promoted by the Chinese government and the World Health Organization- following a report it received from Beijing on 31 December 2019- was that there had been a transfer of the virus from wild captured bats to pangolins, two sad creatures on sale at the wet live food market in central Wuhan, in a transfer process known as zoonosis.( A zoonosis (plural zoonoses, or zoonotic diseases) is an infectious disease caused by a pathogen (an infectious agent, such as a bacterium, virus, parasite or prion) that has jumped from a non-human animal (usually a vertebrate) to a human.) But could there have been any other origin? In public, the British Government showed a complete disinterest in this possibility. For example, on 10th March a question (number HL1839) from Lord Alton of Liverpool asked ministers what assessment they had made of the number and location of microbiology laboratories in China that handle advanced viruses; and what assessment they have made of the role any such laboratories may have had in the initial spread of the Wuhan coronavirus?” It was was extraordinarily answered by Lord Bethell with a brush off retort: “We do not hold this information.” https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2020-02-25/HL1839/ It was Lord Bethell’s second day as a minister. His previous role before becoming a Conservative peer and health minister was to run nightclubs in London. Labour's youngest MP, Nadia Whittome, was similarly given a brush-off by junior health minister, Jo Churchill , on 26 March in a written answer (29268) to a question I suggested to her that she might usefully submit, saying "We have no plans to authorise research into the security control of viruses under investigation at the Wuhan State Institute of Virology." Why was the UK Government so ignorant? In formation is readily available in the public domain. Then on 5 April 2020, the Mail on Sunday published fascinating investigative article on the possible origin of the virus coming from a leak out of the Institute of Virology Research in Wuhan. It seemed plausible. It reported: “that British Government Ministers had been briefed on intelligence which ‘did not rule out that the virus first spread to humans after leaking from a Wuhan laboratory’.” The internationally respected science journal, Nature journal reported three years ealier that a major maximum-security biolab was being developed by the Chinese Government part of plan to build network of biosafety-level four (BSL-4 facilities) across China: the first was to be opened in Wuhan. It was planned to focus on the control of emerging diseases, store purified viruses and act as a World Health Organization ‘reference laboratory’ linked to similar labs around the world. (“Inside the Chinese lab poised to study world's most dangerous pathogens,” Nature, 22 February 2017: www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487) Two years later, the US Centers for Disease Control issued a press briefing note in May 2019 (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/25/5/18-0220_article) on the ‘Biosafety Level 4 Laboratory User Training Program, China’ prepared by seven authors from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Wuhan branch). The authors stressed: “According to China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, the chance that exotic pathogens could be brought into the country has dramatically increased Our new BSL-4 facility will play an integral role in preventing and controlling highly pathogenic microbes.” And concluded ominously “Microbes contained in BSL-4 laboratories pose a significant risk for transmission and are frequently fatal; most have no reliable cure.” What went so catastrophically wrong? Last week the outgoing US Secretary of state Mike Pompeo, issued details of a report that seemed to confirm that the US had evidence of just such a leak that had been of so little interest to incurious British health ministers 8 months earlier. It said: “The United States government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.” (Ensuring a Transparent, Thorough Investigation of COVID-19’s Origin; Press Statement, US Department of State, January 15, 2021) (https://www.state.gov/ensuring-a-transparent-thorough-investigation-of-covid-19s-origin/) Full circle? Backstory America points finger at Chinese lab: US claims researchers at Chinese institute in Wuhan fell ill WEEKS before the world knew of Covid • US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell ill with Covid symptoms in autumn 2019, weeks before alarm raised • He claimed scientists were experimenting with a bat Covid similar to one that causes coronavirus and worked on secret military projects • Allegations come as WHO investigators land in Wuhan looking at Covid origin By Glen Owen and Ian Birrell In Amsterdam For The Mail On Sunday https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9155237/US-claims-researchers-Chinese-institute-fell-ill-weeks-world-knew-Covid.html Mail on Sunday: 22:03, 16 January 2021 | Updated: 08:48, 17 January 2021 The Chinese government is under growing pressure to reveal the true origins of the coronavirus pandemic after US intelligence placed a Wuhan lab at the centre of the mystery. American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell ill with Covid-like symptoms in autumn 2019 – weeks before the alarm was raised about the contagion ravaging the city. He also claimed its scientists were experimenting with a bat coronavirus very similar to the one that causes Covid, and had worked on secret military projects. The Mail on Sunday first revealed concerns about the secretive lab on April 5 last year – some 287 days ago. Now the new allegations from the top of the US administration come as investigators from the World Health Organisation (WHO) land in Wuhan to look into the pandemic’s origins. However, the team will be under the close scrutiny of Beijing officials and have no plans to visit the institute. They have also been accused of downplaying concerns that a leak was to blame. Last night Tory MP Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, called for full transparency, saying: ‘The secrecy surrounding Covid has cost millions of lives and destroyed people’s futures. It has to stop. It’s time we pushed for greater access from the WHO and joined others to sanction those keeping secrets.’ Mr Pompeo, who will leave office next week when Joe Biden succeeds Donald Trump in the White House, said: ‘Beijing continues to withhold vital information that scientists need to protect the world from this deadly virus, and the next one.’ The Wuhan site was one of just five laboratories in the world carrying out controversial ‘gain of function’ research, which artificially speeds up the evolution of viruses and, in some cases, enhances their ability to infect humans. As The Mail on Sunday revealed last year, the scientists were manipulating corona–viruses sampled from bats in caves nearly 1,000 miles away – the same caves where Covid-19 is suspected to have originated. In some cases they used a method of cloning that leaves no trace of lab engineering. This newspaper has also now unearthed minutes from a meeting of the Chinese Communist Party branch at the institute from November 2019 which warned that the lab was dealing with ‘highly pathogenic micro-organisms’ and states that ‘once the test tube containing the virus is opened it is like opening a Pandora’s Box’. Matthew Pottinger, who stood down as Trump’s Deputy National Security Adviser this month, recently said the most ‘credible’ theory about the origin of this new coronavirus was that it escaped from a laboratory in China – and that the Wuhan institute was the most likely source. The British Government has been cautious about speculating on the causes of the pandemic before the conclusion of the WHO investigation, which could take years Yet critics have called the probe a ‘whitewash’ since its composition and access to data are dictated by the Chinese regime. Beijing has backed away from its original claim that the virus originated in Wuhan’s wet market, but no plausible alternative theory has yet emerged. Many prominent scientists still think there was natural transmission from an animal. The US government does not believe the leak was deliberate, but was a catastrophic accident caused by poor safety procedures surrounding the high-risk experiments. One of the leading Wuhan scientists, ‘Batwoman’ Shi Zhengli, admitted her first thought on hearing about the virus was to wonder if it was a leak from her lab. A British security source said: ‘If the US claims can be substantiated, it would finally give the lie to the theory that a bat travelled 1,000 miles to infect a pangolin in a Wuhan wet market which then somehow jumped the species barrier to people – and just a few miles from the only laboratory in China which manipulates bat viruses to make them contagious to humans.’ In its statement released late on Friday, the US State Department said that it was ‘sharing new information’ about the lab, outlining its belief that ‘several researchers inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illnesses. ‘This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students.’ The statement added that the institute has ‘not been transparent’ about its work on bat coronaviruses, and that far from being a purely civilian lab, it had ‘collaborated on secret projects with China’s military [and] engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017’. The statement criticised China’s clampdown on ‘doctors, scientists, and journalists who tried to alert the world’, and said vital data was still being withheld. It concluded that the credibility of the WHO inquiry would suffer without unfettered access ‘to virus samples, lab records and personnel, eyewitnesses, and whistleblowers’. Many experts now believe that the virus was brought into the Wuhan market by customers, rather than originating there. Despite intensive efforts, researchers have failed to find a clear ‘intermediate host’– an animal that would have allowed the virus to jump from bats to humans. The WHO is still dismissive of suggestions the pandemic could have started with a lab leak. Peter Ben Embarek, head of the ten investigators who landed in Wuhan last week, insisted that Covid-19 ‘is clearly a natural virus’, and that the lab leak theory was ‘unlikely’ to be true. He conceded his team would investigate the possibility of a leak, but his pre-emptive statement will fuel fears that the WHO, long criticised for its complacency and complicity with the Chinese regime, is engaged in a whitewash. Lab we first spotlighted in April... and have been investigating ever Lab we first spotlighted in April... and have been investigating ever since Fear that the pandemic may have originated with a leak from a laboratory first erupted on April 5 last year after The Mail on Sunday revealed that a government source believed this explosive concept was ‘no longer being discounted’. This senior figure pointed out: ‘Perhaps it is no coincidence that there is that laboratory in Wuhan.’ Since then, the story has taken off around the world, despite being dismissed as a conspiracy theory by the scientific establishment and those with links to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Last April, we also exposed links between China and World Health Organisation boss Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and his body’s complicity in Beijing’s initial cover-up of the pandemic. The issue was picked up instantly by Donald Trump, who later severed funding from America, the WHO’s biggest financial supporter. The following week, we revealed that the US government was backing high-risk research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Again, this led to the termination of funding, sparking huge debate. In May, we ran exclusive reports on a pair of landmark scientific studies that cast doubt on China’s claims that the new disease had erupted in a wild animal market. Later that month, the nation’s top scientist confirmed their theory was misplaced. We have also obtained censored Chinese reports suggesting the disease started significantly earlier than claimed and disclosed how the head of biosecurity at the secretive Wuhan lab had confessed to serious safety concerns. In recent weeks, we have disclosed how leading scientists closed ranks to dismiss ‘conspiracy theories’ over the idea of a lab leak, and revealed growing concerns over the Wuhan links of British scientist Peter Daszak, a member of the critical WHO inquiry into the origins of this pandemic. We were also the first mainstream paper to set out the full theory of a Wuhan lab leak, the issue now being debated around the world. Lab girl who has vanished from the face of the earth A year-long hunt by The Mail on Sunday and Western intelligence officials for a Chinese lab researcher believed to be the world’s first Covid-19 patient has been thwarted by a suspected state cover-up. Huang Yanling, who worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was named as Patient Zero in online reports that were widely shared inside China in the early weeks of the outbreak last February. The revelation created a direct link between the pandemic and the lab suspected to have accidentally unleashed it while conducting dangerous experiments on bat coronaviruses. 'PATIENT ZERO’: The only picture thought to show missing former Wuhan lab worker Huang Yanling (left) The reports did not say when she contracted the virus or if she survived. However, they support the US State Department’s belief she was the first of several researchers at the controversial institute who fell ill with Covid-19 in the autumn of 2019, before it was officially acknowledged. Chinese government and lab officials stepped in swiftly to deny the reports at the time and remove them from the internet, claiming Huang was safe and well elsewhere in China. A post purporting to be from Huang appeared on WeChat, China’s equivalent of WhatsApp, telling colleagues and teachers at the institute she was alive and insisting the reports were false. The message read: ‘To my teachers and fellow students, how long no speak. I am Huang Yanling, still alive. If you receive any email [regarding the Covid rumour], please say it’s not true.’ A separate post by her former boss, Professor Wei Hong Ping, claimed Huang left the institute in 2015 and had contacted him by phone to deny the reports. A day later, a Chinese news agency made a vague claim to have spoken to her new employer without providing details. Inexplicably, however, Huang has disappeared from social media and has not been heard from since being identified as Patient Zero, while her biography and research history have been scrubbed from the institute’s website. Almost one year on, the only trace of the student researcher is a grainy picture of her salvaged from the institute’s website and circulated on the internet. Wuhan team bitten by bats Scientists at the Wuhan lab admitted being bitten while collecting samples in a cave which is home to coronavirus-infected bats. One researcher said one animal’s fangs went through his rubber gloves ‘like a needle’. Researchers in thin overalls and rubber gloves handle bats while gathering samples in a clip filmed by a Chinese television crew Staff inside the top-secret facility were also shown handling bats without gloves and working on ‘live viruses’ without masks in apparent breach of strict World Health Organisation safety rules on PPE, according to footage captured by a Chinese TV crew and broadcast in 2017. The revelations will raise further questions for the WHO team which is investigating the origins of Covid-19 following months of wrangling with Beijing over access to the Wuhan site. In the days after the initial reports, bloggers and internet users in China suspicious of officials’ denials pleaded with Huang to make a public appearance to prove she was alive. ‘To stop this rumour spreading, Huang should just come forward and do a blood test,’ said one. Another posted: ‘No matter where you live, Huang, you will be found.’ China’s internet censors quickly stamped out discussion of Huang, and extensive enquiries within the country by The Mail on Sunday, including messages to her former colleagues, have failed to turn up any trace of her. Huang remains an enigma, the only picture of her showing a woman in her 20s with long hair, peeking out from behind a colleague. Her name is included among the writers of three scientific papers issued by the Wuhan institute between 2013 and 2015, including research into staphylococcus bacteria. Western governments and intelligence agencies are also understood to have tried and failed to locate Huang amid a ferocious crackdown on any challenge to China’s official narrative that the outbreak has no link to the Wuhan facility. In its statement yesterday, the US State Department complained that the Chinese Communist Party had prevented investigators and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the Wuhan institute ‘including those who were ill in the fall [autumn] of 2019’ ‘Beijing continues today to withhold vital information that scientists need to protect the world from this deadly virus and the next one,’ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added. China’s reluctance to produce Huang to quash the alleged rumours has fuelled the belief that she is either dead or is being held by the state to cover up the institute’s culpability for the pandemic. It has also generated lurid speculation about her fate, with some claiming Huang must have been hastily cremated. ‘Everyone on the Chinese internet is searching for Huang. Most believe she is dead,’ said one blogger. In the same month that Huang was named as Patient Zero, a user of Chinese social-media platform Weibo, claiming to be a researcher in Wuhan, alleged the virus had leaked from the institute. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The world needs to know exactly what happened in Wuhan Mail On Sunday Comment , 17 January 2021 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9155489/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-world-needs-know-exactly-happened-Wuhan.html The mystery of Wuhan – did the Covid-19 outbreak originate in a state laboratory there? – has now reached a new level. The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has added his powerful voice to those asking for the truth. The US State Department, in a document of great sobriety and caution, did not suggest that the virus was intentionally engineered or released on purpose. Even so, it flatly accused China’s ruling Communist Party of systematically preventing a proper investigation into the origin of the pandemic. It complained that China’s authorities have a ‘deadly obsession with secrecy and control’ and have chosen instead to ‘devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation’. The mystery of Wuhan – did the Covid-19 outbreak originate in a state laboratory there? – has now reached a new level. Pictured: Shi Zhengli works with other researchers in a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in central China's Hubei province Washington also suggested that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has been involved in military work, even though it poses as a civilian institution. The State Department said that the WIV had collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military and had done classified research, including animal experiments, on behalf of China’s defence sector. It said it had ‘a right and obligation to determine whether any of our research funding was diverted to secret Chinese military projects at the WIV’. This is extraordinarily tough language at such a high level. Mr Pompeo was careful not to make any specific allegations about what may have happened. The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has added his powerful voice to those asking for the truth But he revealed, in a major development, that the US has ‘reason to believe’ that several researchers inside the WIV fell ill in the autumn of 2019, weeks before the first officially identified case of Covid. They had symptoms consistent with both Covid and common seasonal illnesses. US experts also claim that Wuhan scientists were working with a bat coronavirus that is 96.2 per cent similar genetically to the virus that causes Covid. Could this autumn 2019 outbreak have been the first case of Covid? Could this have resulted from a laboratory accident or unintended cross-infection between animals in laboratories and human researchers? It is vitally important that we should know, and high time, too. The Mail on Sunday first reported on April 5 last year that British Government Ministers had been briefed on intelligence which ‘did not rule out that the virus first spread to humans after leaking from a Wuhan laboratory’. Those who cast doubt on this revelation at the time have some explaining to do. The evidence is now piling up that serious independent investigation is required. With a death toll of two million already, even the suggestion that this disaster may have had origins in human error must be pursued until we have clear answers. The World Health Organisation is looking into events in Wuhan. But will this probe be adequate? Questions have been raised about one of the inquiry members, Peter Daszak, who has been accused of important conflicts of interest. The WHO team also cannot be sure of full co-operation from China. As of last night, there was no certainty that the team would even be permitted to visit the WIV itself. Shockingly, neither China nor the WHO will say exactly where they will go. This is simply not good enough. The world needs to know exactly what happened in Wuhan. If it was a disastrous accident leading to a pandemic, then urgent steps must be taken as quickly as possible to prevent a repeat. And China has to understand that, as a great and growing power, it needs to accept much higher standards of transparency and frankness than it has shown so far. Ensuring a Transparent, Thorough Investigation of COVID-19’s Origin Press Statement https://www.state.gov/ensuring-a-transparent-thorough-investigation-of-covid-19s-origin/ MICHAEL R. POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE JANUARY 15, 2021 The United States has repeatedly called for a transparent and thorough investigation into the origin of COVID-19. Understanding the origin of this pandemic is essential for global public health, economic recovery, and international security. To assist the vital work of the World Health Organization (WHO) investigative team that arrived in China this week, the United States government is today sharing new information concerning the activities inside China’s government laboratories in 2019. In particular, we urge the WHO to press the government of China to address the following: 1. Illnesses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV): The United States government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses. 2. WIV Research on “RaTG13” and “gain of function”: Starting in at least 2016, WIV researchers studied RaTG13, the bat coronavirus identified by the WIV in January 2020 as its closest sample to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% similar). Since the outbreak, the WIV has not been transparent nor consistent about its work with RaTG13 or other similar viruses, including possible “gain of function” experiments to enhance transmissibility or lethality. 3. Secret WIV Links to Military Research: Despite the WIV presenting itself as a civilian institution, the WIV has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017. The COVID-19 pandemic was avoidable. Any responsible country would have invited world health investigators to Wuhan within days of an outbreak. China instead refused offers of help – including from the United States – and punished brave Chinese doctors, scientists, and journalists who tried to alert the world to the dangers of the virus. Beijing continues today to withhold vital information that scientists need to protect the world from this deadly virus, and the next one. The United States reiterates the importance of unfettered access to virus samples, lab records and personnel, eyewitnesses, and whistleblowers to ensure the credibility of the WHO’s final report. Until the CCP allows a full and thorough accounting of what happened in Wuhan, it is only a matter of time until China births another pandemic and inflicts it on the Chinese people, and the world. Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology Fact Sheet OFFICE OF THE SPOKESPERSON JANUARY 15, 2021 HTTPS://WWW.STATE.GOV/FACT-SHEET-ACTIVITY-AT-THE-WUHAN-INSTITUTE-OF-VIROLOGY/ For more than a year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has systematically prevented a transparent and thorough investigation of the COVID-19 pandemic’s origin, choosing instead to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation. Nearly two million people have died. Their families deserve to know the truth. Only through transparency can we learn what caused this pandemic and how to prevent the next one. The U.S. government does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus—known as SARS-CoV-2—was transmitted initially to humans. We have not determined whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China. The virus could have emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, spreading in a pattern consistent with a natural epidemic. Alternatively, a laboratory accident could resemble a natural outbreak if the initial exposure included only a few individuals and was compounded by asymptomatic infection. Scientists in China have researched animal-derived coronaviruses under conditions that increased the risk for accidental and potentially unwitting exposure. The CCP’s deadly obsession with secrecy and control comes at the expense of public health in China and around the world. The previously undisclosed information in this fact sheet, combined with open-source reporting, highlights three elements about COVID-19’s origin that deserve greater scrutiny: 1. Illnesses inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV): • The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses. • Accidental infections in labs have caused several previous virus outbreaks in China and elsewhere, including a 2004 SARS outbreak in Beijing that infected nine people, killing one. • The CCP has prevented independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who were ill in the fall of 2019. Any credible inquiry into the origin of the virus must include interviews with these researchers and a full accounting of their previously unreported illness. 2. Research at the WIV: • Starting in at least 2016 – and with no indication of a stop prior to the COVID-19 outbreak – WIV researchers conducted experiments involving RaTG13, the bat coronavirus identified by the WIV in January 2020 as its closest sample to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% similar). The WIV became a focal point for international coronavirus research after the 2003 SARS outbreak and has since studied animals including mice, bats, and pangolins. • The WIV has a published record of conducting “gain-of-function” research to engineer chimeric viruses. But the WIV has not been transparent or consistent about its record of studying viruses most similar to the COVID-19 virus, including “RaTG13,” which it sampled from a cave in Yunnan Province in 2013 after several miners died of SARS-like illness. • WHO investigators must have access to the records of the WIV’s work on bat and other coronaviruses before the COVID-19 outbreak. As part of a thorough inquiry, they must have a full accounting of why the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses. 3. Secret military activity at the WIV: • Secrecy and non-disclosure are standard practice for Beijing. For many years the United States has publicly raised concerns about China’s past biological weapons work, which Beijing has neither documented nor demonstrably eliminated, despite its clear obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention. • Despite the WIV presenting itself as a civilian institution, the United States has determined that the WIV has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017. • The United States and other donors who funded or collaborated on civilian research at the WIV have a right and obligation to determine whether any of our research funding was diverted to secret Chinese military projects at the WIV. Today’s revelations just scratch the surface of what is still hidden about COVID-19’s origin in China. Any credible investigation into the origin of COVID-19 demands complete, transparent access to the research labs in Wuhan, including their facilities, samples, personnel, and records. As the world continues to battle this pandemic – and as WHO investigators begin their work, after more than a year of delays – the virus’s origin remains uncertain. The United States will continue to do everything it can to support a credible and thorough investigation, including by continuing to demand transparency on the part of Chinese authorities.

The causes and courses of the right-wing insurgency in the US

I have tried to make sense of the madness that gripped the crowd of mostly white insurgents- really pretty close to terrorists - who engulfed the US Capitol on 6 January this year. In reading up on the background, I came across this shockingly revealing article, that unveils the perverse political mind-set behind some of the people who joined that mob. They include a Univeristy trained nuclear physicist who was covertly developing plans to blow up a nuclear power plant. Read on: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Series: Documenting Hate An Atomwaffen Member Sketched a Map to Take the Neo-Nazis Down. What Path Officials Took Is a Mystery. Some experts and former officials see the case as part of a larger pattern, evidence that federal agencies are understaffed and out of position in confronting the threat of white supremacist terrorism — even as the FBI’s latest report shows a spike in hate crimes for the third straight year. by A.C. Thompson, Nov. 20, 2018, 10:45 a.m. EST https://www.propublica.org/article/an-atomwaffen-member-sketched-a-map-to-take-the-neo-nazis-down-what-path-officials-took-is-a-mystery Tampa police detective Kenneth Nightlinger, seated right, questions Atomwaffen member Devon Arthurs in May 2017. (Frontline) Series: Documenting Hate Tracking Hate Crimes and Bias Incidents This story was co-published with Frontline PBS. It was a grisly scene inside Apartment 3722 at the Hamptons, a gated community in Tampa, Florida. One body lay face up on the floor, wedged between a wall and an air mattress. A handgun was stuffed in a holster on the dead man’s waist. The other body, clad in a black T-shirt and shorts, was slumped back on a futon, a shattered and bloody iPhone on his lap. A police investigator would later write that the two men had been “shot multiple times at close range with an assault rifle.” There were some obvious clues that this was no ordinary double homicide. Tacked to the wall near the bodies was a large black-and-white flag bearing the insignia of the Schutzstaffel, or SS, Adolf Hitler’s elite paramilitary unit. On a nearby shelf was a black Stahlhelm, the distinctive helmet worn by Nazi soldiers during World War II. There were multiple copies of “Mein Kampf” and a prominent place was reserved for “The Turner Diaries,” the infamous novel of race war in America that has inspired generations of terrorists, among them Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. A framed picture of McVeigh sat on a dresser. About the Partnership This story is part of an ongoing collaboration between ProPublica and Frontline. Watch “Documenting Hate: New American Nazis” on PBS on Nov. 20 at 9 p.m. Eastern, 8 Central, and online at pbs.org/frontline. On that night in May 2017, the police quickly took two suspects into custody and developed a rough outline of what had happened. One of the suspects, Devon Arthurs, 18, said the victims were his roommates, and members of a neo-Nazi group called the Atomwaffen Division. Arthurs said that he’d decided to leave the group, and that he’d killed the men to keep them from carrying out what he said were their plans for violence. The second suspect detained by police, Brandon Russell, also lived in the apartment. Russell told the authorities he’d just returned home from a weekend of training with the Florida Army National Guard. And then Russell revealed something that should have set off alarms among federal investigators assigned to track the growing threat from armed, violent right-wing extremists. He said, and the police quickly confirmed, that the single-car garage attached to the apartment was full of explosives. Explosives experts from the Tampa Police Department and the local FBI field office soon found components of a crude pipe bomb as well as radioactive materials. The search turned up ammonium nitrate and nitromethane, the mixture used by McVeigh to destroy the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. There were sacks of explosive precursors, including potassium chloride, red iron oxide and potassium nitrate. There were homemade fuses fashioned from brass 5.56 mm rifle cartridges. In a closet, they found two Geiger counters. And there was a cooler with the name Brandon scrawled on the lid in black marker. Inside, the investigators discovered HMTD — hexamethylene triperoxide diamine — a potent, highly volatile peroxide-based explosive. It has become a favored tool of terrorists both here and abroad, who cook it up in small batches using recipes circulating on the internet and in improvised weapons manuals. At Tampa police headquarters, investigators put Arthurs and Russell in separate interrogation rooms. They wanted to know about the killings, about the neo-Nazi group and about the explosives. Arthurs said the apartment had served as a nerve center for Atomwaffen Division, a white supremacist organization of 60 to 70 people that has spoken openly of its hopes of igniting race war in the United States. If the authorities could access the group’s encrypted online chats, Arthurs said, “it’d be easy to track down each member.” The interrogation was videotaped, and a recording was obtained by ProPublica and Frontline. “The things that they’re planning were horrible. They’re planning bombings and stuff like that on countless people, they’re planning to kill civilian life,” Arthurs said. A detective asked if Atomwaffen had drawn up a list of specific targets. “Power lines, nuclear reactors, synagogues, things like that,” Arthurs replied. “I’m telling you stuff that the FBI should be hearing,” Arthurs said, adding that he thought lives could be saved. To this day, it is unclear if the FBI talked with Arthurs or what steps it took to shut down Atomwaffen. The FBI declined repeated requests to discuss the case. But this much is clear: Within months of Arthurs’ warnings, Atomwaffen members or associates had killed three more people. It is frequently argued that the white men who murder in the name of racial purity are lone wolves, radicalized by the echo chamber of the alt-right internet. No one can reasonably expect authorities to stop a seemingly law-abiding citizen like Dylann Roof, the young man who killed nine black church members in South Carolina. But the Atomwaffen case seems a fair test of the country’s intelligence abilities. And a close look at it suggests that much more could have been done to investigate an organization one of its founding members, Arthurs, was begging the authorities to shut down and offering his help to do so. The cooler containing Atomwaffen founder Brandon Russell’s HMTD explosive. (Exhibit from U.S. vs. Brandon Russell) Some experts and former officials see the case as part of a larger pattern, evidence that federal agencies are understaffed and out of position in confronting the threat of white supremacist terrorism even as the FBI’s latest report shows a spike in hate crimes for the third straight year. That concern intensified after the massacre of 11 Jewish worshipers last month at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. John Cohen and George Selim, former senior officials in the Department of Homeland Security, criticized what they say has been the disinvestment in programs and efforts meant to help protect against the threat of far-right attacks. Task forces have been disbanded, they said, and recent efforts to reconstitute what they termed an “intelligence infrastructure” for domestic terrorism have lagged. The government’s own data underlines the threat. A 2017 Government Accountability Office report said “far-right extremism” was responsible for 62 of the 85 lethal extremist incidents in the U.S. from the day after 9/11 through 2016, while Islamist extremist violence was responsible for 23 of the incidents. The report said far-right extremism had killed 106 people over those years. Contacted by ProPublica and Frontline, Cohen, now a professor at Rutgers University, said he stood by his public critique. “We know what the problem is, but every time there’s another one of these attacks all we hear is, ‘Oh, this is shocking, this is horrible, our prayers are with the people, who would have imagined this ever would have happened?’” Cohen said. “No, it’s very imaginable because it’s happening on a regular basis in this country. We’re just not doing enough to stop it.” The authorities dispatched to the Tampa apartment seemed unprepared to deal with this particular brand of terrorism. The police detectives and FBI agent who interviewed Arthurs and Russell appear to have given little credence to the evidence discovered in the apartment, or to Arthurs’ allegations that the group was plotting terrorist attacks and mass murders. While Arthurs was taken to the county jail on homicide charges, police and FBI agents released Russell, who claimed that he used the explosives to power model rockets. An officer even drove Russell back to the murder scene so he could retrieve his car. What happened next could well have been a disaster. Within hours, Russell acquired an AR-15-style assault rifle and a bolt-action hunting rifle. He loaded homemade body armor and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition into his car, and set off for the Florida Keys with another Atomwaffen member. He was eventually arrested by sheriff’s deputies in Monroe County. They were shocked by the weapons and ammunition they found in the car. There was no luggage. No food. Russell didn’t seem prepared for an extended trip, they said. “When we found all the weapons, we were convinced that we had just stopped a mass shooting,” recalled Deanna Torres, one of the deputies who captured Russell, who would eventually plead guilty to federal explosives charges. Five former law enforcement agents spoke to ProPublica and Frontline about the handling of Arthurs and Russell. Most said they were baffled by the decision to release Russell. Tampa police and local prosecutors would not discuss the case. Atomwaffen didn’t disband in the aftermath of the Tampa arrests. The group continued to recruit new members, staging “hate camps” in at least two states that included weapons training. And the group’s violence went unhindered. In December 2017, a 17-year-old Atomwaffen follower was arrested on suspicion of murdering the parents of his ex-girlfriend after they ended their daughter’s relationship with the neo-Nazi. A month later, Samuel Woodward was charged with killing a gay Jewish college student in California. Woodward, ProPublica reported in the following days, had participated in weapons training with Atomwaffen members in Texas in the months after the Tampa slayings. Woodward’s fellow Atomwaffen members cheered online when he was arrested, calling him a “one man gay jew wrecking crew.” In response to questions about DHS’s readiness to combat white supremacist violence, DHS Press Secretary Tyler Houlton issued a statement: “The Department of Homeland Security is committed to combating all forms of violent extremism, especially movements that espouse racial supremacy or bigotry. DHS takes all threats to the homeland, both foreign and domestic, very seriously and to suggest otherwise is an affront to the men and women of DHS that work tirelessly every day to ensure the safety of the American people. We will continue to work hand-in-hand with our federal, state and local partners to carry out our mission of keeping our country safe.” Brandon Russell met Devon Arthurs online, on a site called Tinychat that provides video chat services, Arthurs said. Both young men lived in Florida — Brandon in Tampa, Devon in Longwood, a suburb north of Orlando. Wearing headsets, the two would sit at their computers and talk deep into the night. Eventually, their conversations moved over to Iron March, a now-defunct neo-Nazi forum with the tagline “race war now!” On Iron March, Russell posted photos of himself posing with a Mossberg shotgun while wearing a white T-shirt bearing the words “Natural Born Killers” and an image of a Nazi eagle. Online, he celebrated school shooters like Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (Columbine High School) and Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech); mass murderer Anders Breivik (a self-proclaimed National Socialist who killed 77 people in Norway); and Hitler. In addition to his fascination with fascism and acts of violence, Russell had one more obsession: nuclear weapons. He posted instructions online for building improvised nuclear reactors — it's not clear how realistic these plans were — and studied nuclear physics as an undergraduate at the University of South Florida. When Russell launched Atomwaffen in 2015, Arthurs was one of the first recruits to the group. Arthurs began gravitating toward Nazi beliefs at 13 or 14, according to his father, Alan Arthurs, who said he’s still mystified by his son’s interest in Nazism. “I don't get it. I don't get it. I don't know why,” he told Frontline and ProPublica. Russell’s jail booking photo. He is currently serving a five-year prison term. (Frontline) In the spring of 2017, Devon Arthurs and Russell moved into the Tampa apartment. Arthurs had dropped out of high school and had no job. But Alan Arthurs believes his son and Russell were making lengthy road trips to sell illegal firearms in states far from Florida. In time, Russell and Arthurs were joined in the Tampa apartment by Andrew Oneschuk, 18, and Jeremy Himmelman, 22, two Atomwaffen members from Massachusetts. Oneschuk and Himmelman were the dead men police discovered in the apartment on the night of May 19, 2017. Alan Arthurs said his son called him after the shooting and confessed to killing the pair. Over the ensuing hours, Arthurs told a shifting series of stories about his motives. He told his father he’d killed them to head off Atomwaffen’s terrorist plans. He said something similar to investigators. But he also offered an even stranger version: that he’d converted to Islam and supported ISIS, and that he’d killed the two men because they mocked his newfound religion. A judge has since ruled Arthurs mentally incompetent to stand trial. In his interrogation shortly after his arrest, Arthurs said he was aware of his mental health problems and wished he’d been hospitalized long before. He said that people might not think he looked like a terrorist, but that he had been engaged in dark and dangerous conduct. And then, in quite composed fashion, he sketched out in great detail both the terrorist ambitions of Atomwaffen and the tactics law enforcement might use to infiltrate the group and bring it down. He warned the Tampa detective leading the questioning, Kenneth Nightlinger, against underestimating the group. Repeatedly, he tried to push back against what he seemed to regard as the detective’s skepticism. Arthurs said Atomwaffen drew inspiration from The Order, a neo-Nazi terrorist group active during the 1980s. Led by Robert Mathews, the organization believed the U.S. had been taken over by a shadow government of powerful Jews. The Order bombed a synagogue and in 1984 assassinated Alan Berg, a prominent Jewish radio host who lived in Denver. Russell and Atomwaffen “venerate” The Order, Arthurs said in his interview with detectives. “These people, they have no human empathy like we do.” “These people ... they know exactly how to build, they knew exactly how to build bombs that could've destroyed this entire building,” Arthurs said. Nightlinger often pressed for more information. “Do you know about specific plans that these two individuals had?” the detective asked, referring to Oneschuk and Himmelman. Arthurs said the men were planning on blowing up power lines near a major highway. They were going to use the HMTD to do it. The detective pressed further. “Did Brandon ever specifically talk about doing anything similar to that? To any government buildings?” “Oh, absolutely. All the time,” Arthurs answered. “Any specific ones?” “Government offices, federal buildings,” Arthurs said. The detective at one point tried to assure Arthurs that he and others would act on his information. “This is absolutely serious stuff,” said Nightlinger, encouraging Arthurs to pass on “any information” that could be used to combat “these misguided individuals.” Arthurs apologized for seeming flustered. “I'm not trying to sound like a schizo cause I know that I'm trampling over words and stuff,” he said. “No, no, you're in control, man,” Nightlinger said. “You're good, keep going.” And Arthurs did. Arthurs told the detective that Russell acquired guns and trained him and the other roommates in how to handle them. He said while Russell had joined the Florida Army National Guard, he’d used the American flag as a doormat to the apartment. He warned that if Russell was given the chance, he’d easily be able to reacquire the explosives that had been confiscated from the garage. And repeatedly Arthurs offered to help law enforcement round up Atomwaffen members and dismantle the organization. He’d open up his computer. And he thought it would be easy to penetrate the computers of the others. “You think having your computer, an FBI agent as you requested, sit down and go over this stuff, you think then you would open some eyes?” Nightlinger asked. “Yeah, I definitely do,” Arthurs said. “I think that it would open some eyes to a much bigger thing than what happened today, and I think that I could definitely, basically save a lot of lives overall.” Police and federal agents discovered HMTD and other explosive materials in Russell and Arthurs’ Tampa garage. (Exhibit from U.S. vs. Brandon Russell) At one point, the detective seemed persuaded. Nightlinger suggested he would pass the word to the appropriate agents in the FBI. “I mean they're actually going to be actually be made aware of this and they're going to do their homework,” he said. “Just to make sure you're not talking out your ass about something here in order to maybe gain some favorable treatment.” The FBI would not answer questions about its handling of the Tampa case, saying that the investigation remains open. Agents have questioned former Atomwaffen members in at least two states, according to individuals with direct knowledge of the inquiry. In a statement, the FBI said: “The FBI is not permitted to discuss any facet of the Brandon Russell investigation. The decision not to discuss this investigation was made in accordance with Department of Justice Guidelines and FBI Rules and Regulations.” ProPublica and Frontline reviewed the crime scene photos and police reports from the Tampa apartment with Kerry Myers, a former FBI bomb tech who investigated the Oklahoma City bombing. “They were making bombs,” Myers said. “This is a bomb maker's workshop.” Myers added that the materials were enough “to blow up a car, blow up an airplane, blow up a bus. We have the same basic explosive kit here that the Boston Marathon bombers had.” Alan Arthurs, who had watched his son’s involvement in Nazism develop over the years and seems to have been the first person Devon called after the killings, told ProPublica and Frontline he has never been interviewed by FBI agents. The local Tampa detectives didn’t question Alan Arthurs until June 5, 2017, more than two weeks after the crimes, according to Police Department records. At the Tampa apartment, investigators recovered one of Russell’s notebooks, which contained a hand-drawn map of a quarry located between Orlando and Tampa. The map included GPS coordinates for the quarry and a description of its operations. Such facilities often use high-powered explosives to blast through rock. McVeigh stole blasting caps from a mining operation before the Oklahoma City attack. The quarry in Florida, a sand mine, is owned by E.R. Jahna Industries. Reached for comment, company executive Adell Jahna said that he had never heard of Atomwaffen and that the company had never been contacted by local law enforcement or the FBI in connection with the case. During his interrogation, Devon Arthurs had not only warned of Atomwaffen’s violent ambitions, but said repeatedly that the organization had attracted U.S. military personnel as members and was aiming to recruit more. Arthurs said Russell, the group's founder, had signed up for the Florida Army National Guard in part to get the kind of combat training he might put to use for Atomwaffen. Russell had been drilling in Pinellas Park with the 53rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team on the day of the murders. In his own interview with Tampa police, Russell said he expected his unit to be deployed in 2018 and was considering the Army as a career. “He joined specifically for the knowledge and the training, and he wants to use that training against the government,” Arthurs said of Russell during his police interrogation. “These people join the military specially to get training. To get access to equipment.” The ultimate goal, Arthurs continued, was to become more equipped to kill people. Defense Department directives and the regulations of each military branch bar service members from engaging in white supremacist activity. Service members can face criminal charges and expulsion from the military for violating these policies. After Russell’s arrest, the Florida Guard mounted an investigation into his activities while in uniform. Three weeks after Russell was jailed, the Guard wrapped up its inquiry. In a report, the Guard listed some of the troubling things it had found: •Russell had a tattoo of the Atomwaffen logo on his right shoulder. The investigator on the case noted that the U.S. military did not maintain a database of tattoos that might have been used to screen for troubling affiliations. •Two of Russell’s superiors had warned him about his conduct after he repeatedly “vocalized his hatred for homosexuality and ‘faggots.’” •Russell had “seemed very anxious to receive body armor, and keep his military issued gear.” But the investigation concluded that Russell had not sought to recruit other soldiers for Atomwaffen, and that he “did not present consistent characteristics that would have led a reasonable person to suspect Russell held such radical beliefs.” Investigators determined there had been no negligence in allowing Russell into the Guard or in his continued presence in its ranks. The two-page summary of the investigation, obtained by ProPublica and Frontline, contains no references to Arthurs’ statements to authorities about other possible Atomwaffen members in the military. Nor does it contain any evidence that the Guard had alerted officials in other military branches to the potential presence of Atomwaffen in their ranks. Russell bought this rifle after he was released from custody by Tampa police and the FBI. (Exhibit from U.S. vs. Brandon Russell) The Florida Army National Guard did not respond to repeated requests for an interview regarding Russell. This year, ProPublica and Frontline identified seven Atomwaffen members with military experience, including Russell. The Pentagon did not respond to detailed requests from ProPublica and Frontline to discuss Atomwaffen and its possible recruitment of current or former military members. In a statement, a Pentagon spokeswoman, Maj. Carla Gleason of the Air Force, said: “The DoD uses a multi-level approach to learn as much as possible about potential new soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines so we can assess whether they should be extended the privilege to serve in the military. While we can't guarantee that every person who enters the service will be free from holding extremist thoughts, various screening tools provide us the best opportunity to identify those who do not share our values.” Kathleen Belew, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago, has studied the historic links between the white power movement and the U.S. armed forces. White power groups, she said, have long drawn from the ranks of the military. And former soldiers have become leaders of white supremacist groups over the decades. Aryan Nations chief Richard Butler did a stint in the Army. KKK Grand Dragon Louis Beam served in Vietnam, as did White Patriot Party leader Frazier Glenn Miller. In 2014, after decades of involvement with white extremist groups, Miller murdered three people outside of a pair of Jewish institutions in Overland Park, Kansas. He was eventually sentenced to death and is awaiting execution. Belew is careful to say that the members of the military who wind up affiliated with white supremacist groups constitute “a tiny, not even statistically significant percentage” of total service members. But those few, she said, have often played “an enormously important role” in organizing such groups and carrying out their bloodiest actions. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Belew said, white power groups increasingly modeled themselves on the U.S. military and began to focus on recruiting “both veterans and active-duty troops in order to run boot camps” and “create paramilitary training facilities.” As the movement grew more extreme, she said, it sought out people who could build improvised explosives or accurately fire a submachine gun. Atomwaffen has certainly embraced that tactic. Current and former soldiers have participated in what the group calls “hate camps,” secret weapons training conducted in a number of states around the country over the last two years. Those who have studied the relationship between military service and white supremacist ideology say soldiers can become deeply disillusioned when fighting controversial wars with little in the way of clear victories. They may return angry and damaged, animated by a degree of nihilism. One Atomwaffen member who saw combat in Afghanistan discussed his emotional demons in the group’s private online chats. The man wrote that he had “nightmares about seeing people i know blown up” and felt guilt about inadvertently killing women and children. ProPublica and Frontline interviewed a former Atomwaffen member who had served overseas in the Army. He would only speak if his identity was not revealed and asked us to call him Jeremiah. “There were a lot of people that were disenchanted with the mission. I'd say about half of the guys in my unit,” Jeremiah said. “I think a lot of guys, they’re lost and they want hope. They’re looking for answers.” Somehow he found those answers on Iron March, the now-defunct online neo-Nazi hangout that Russell used to launch Atomwaffen. According to Jeremiah, Atomwaffen “definitely wanted to appeal to veterans.” Within the organization, “people looked up to the military guys,” he said. He said he encountered other racial extremists during his time in the Army: “There’s a good amount of them. They keep quiet for the most part about it, especially when they're in because they can get in a lot of trouble.” But it’s unclear how seriously the military is taking the matter. The former member said he’s never been contacted by military investigators. ProPublica and Frontline interviewed more than 20 officials with direct knowledge of the military’s handling of felony-level criminal investigations. Most said racial extremists were a low priority for military police and detectives with elite military law enforcement units like the Army Criminal Investigation Division and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which polices the Navy and Marine Corps. Military investigators are more focused on street gangs operating within the armed forces, sexual assault and illegal drugs, the officials said. Roughly a year after Russell’s arrest in Tampa, an Army investigator told ProPublica and Frontline that the Army’s CID unit had not opened an investigation into Russell and his neo-Nazi organization. Several military officials said Army CID had no jurisdiction in Russell’s case because he was a member of the Florida Guard and not an active-duty soldier. Read More Have You Encountered White Supremacists or Neo-Nazis in the Military? Tell Us. We want to know more about these service members. We want to know what the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are doing about them. Ranks of Notorious Hate Group Include Active-Duty Military A Marine took part in the violent assaults in Charlottesville last summer and later bragged about it online with other members of Atomwaffen, an extremist group preparing for a race war. ProPublica and Frontline published their initial reporting on the nexus between Atomwaffen and the military in May. Since then, the Marine Corps has taken action against Atomwaffen member Vasillios Pistolis, a lance corporal on active duty. Pistolis, who had allegedly participated in assaults during the Charlottesville, Virginia, white supremacist rally in 2017, was court-martialed and ousted from the corps. In interviews, Pistolis admitted having been a member of Atomwaffen but denied being in Charlottesville. In response to that earlier reporting, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., in May wrote a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis requesting details on the Pentagon’s efforts to rid the ranks of white supremacists. Replying to Ellison, the Defense Department said that it had received “27 reports of extremist activity (domestic) by Service members over the past five years.” Military investigators, the letter continued, had investigated 25 of these reports; ultimately, 18 service members from across the military had been disciplined or forced out of the armed forces. Gleason, the Pentagon spokeswoman, said she couldn’t provide information on individual cases but stated, “Our standards are clear; participation in extremist activities has never been tolerated and is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” She added that commanders are “encouraged to be preventive and pro-active, and they are doing that.” We took the Pentagon’s letter to Ellison to retired Maj. Gen. John Altenburg, who served as the Army’s deputy judge advocate general, the second-highest-ranking JAG officer in the Army. Altenburg said he was persuaded that the military is taking proper action against offenders in its ranks. “I’m pleased to see that they’re doing all this,” Altenburg said of the 18 cases of discipline handed down by the Pentagon. “This looks very thorough to me and looks like they’re on top of it.” He noted that the Pentagon letter did not distinguish between white supremacists and other types of political extremists. At the Southern Poverty Law Center, Heidi Beirich was skeptical of the Defense Department’s figures, calling them “laughable.” “Hate groups are telling their people to join the military, and this was something that's been documented, both in FBI reports and in DHS reports,” said Beirich, who heads the center’s Intelligence Project. “There’s not only going to be 27 of them, in a military force of, I don’t know, one and a half to two million people in the United States, who are under arms.” Last year, nearly 25 percent of active-duty service members surveyed by the Military Times said they’d encountered white nationalists within the ranks. The publication polled more than 1,000 service members. Beirich questioned the Pentagon’s willingness to root out white supremacists. “We keep sending stuff to the military, examples of people, saying: ‘You should look at this guy. He looks like he might be in violation,’” she said. “Most of the time we never even hear anything back from them.” Documenting Hate: New American Nazis ProPublica and Frontline investigate a neo-Nazi group that has actively recruited inside the U.S. military. Update, Nov. 20, 2018: This article has been updated to include a statement by the Department of Homeland Security. Ali Winston, Joshua E.S. Phillips, Richard Rowley, Karim Hajj and Nick Verbitsky contributed additional reporting.

Why the truth matters, including on nuclear issues

I have spent the past few days engaged in an excellent webinar on nuclear waste and information disclosure, titled: AARHUS CONVENTION AND NUCLEAR (ACN) ROUND TABLE ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (RWM), online 13-15 January 2021 The promotional blurb reads “The European Commission (DG ENER) and Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW) have organized an “Aarhus Convention and Nuclear” Roundtable [with] the objective to gather concerned stakeholders by Radioactive Waste Management (operators, regulators and institutional representatives, experts and researchers, NGOs, civil society representatives) in order to discuss concrete implementation of the Aarhus Convention principles (public information and participation)”.(http://www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/acn-round-table) Most of the presentations have been really informative and insightful (with the exception of a shocking apologia on radiation risks from a shameless official from Euratom, whose blushes I will save by not naming him here! His contribution surely undermined the credibility of Euratom as a source of reliable information on radiological risk). However, the answers given to some questions were demonstrably wrong, from people holding important official roles in pan –European nuclear bodies or national environmental ministries. It is very worrying these so-called official experts either really believe what they responded, ( and are thus incompetent in their role) or deliberately dissembled, ie lied, and thought their audience would not notice or know the answer was untrue. But some of us did; and pointed this out! As this three day forum was underway across the European a digital airwaves, the UK nuclear waste management implementer- Radioactive Waste Management Limited and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) unveiled a new atomic aspirant to bury nuclear waste under their land in Cumbria, near Sellafield. Here is how the RWML/NDA announced it: RWM welcomes launch of second GDF ‘Working Group’ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rwm-welcomes-launch-of-second-gdf-working-group The Working Group in Allerdale, Cumbria, will now begin local discussions about the potential for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) Published 14 January 2021 by Radioactive Waste Management and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. A Working Group has been formed in Allerdale, Cumbria, to begin discussions about the potential for hosting a deep geological facility for the safe and secure disposal of radioactive waste. Today’s announcement follows two months after the first group was established in neighbouring Copeland. Chaired independently by Jocelyn Manners-Armstrong, the Allerdale Working Group will now begin local discussions and fact-finding about the potential for the future siting of a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in Allerdale. Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Chief Executive, Karen Wheeler, said: “I’m delighted to see the formation of the GDF Working Group in Allerdale which will start to engage local residents, businesses, and other organisations about the possibility of hosting a GDF. This is the second Working Group to form, following Copeland’s announcement in November, with more planned to come across England in the months ahead. The formation of a Working Group is a very early step in the process, but it demonstrates real progress is being made towards finding a willing community and suitable site for one of the biggest environmental protection projects of our lifetime – disposing of higher activity waste safely and securely in a GDF. This is a massive infrastructure investment for a local economy, and a vital project for the UK. It will create thousands of jobs over its lifetime, bringing opportunities to develop a local workforce with the skills and expertise that will be needed. A GDF will also attract further inward investment together with supply chain opportunities over the course of many decades and into the next century. The group will initially focus on gathering information about the local area and views of the local community, and identifying a Search Area for further detailed consideration. As is the position in Copeland, the Lake District National Park will be excluded. There is no requirement to make any commitment on future willingness to host a GDF. The Working Group will also identify the initial members of a Community Partnership that will continue these early discussions once a search area is identified, sharing information and working alongside RWM as geological investigations take place. Setting up a Working Group does not mean a GDF will be built in a particular location. Before any final decision is taken, the community must demonstrate its willingness to host a GDF through a test of public support, and it must be shown that the local area has suitable geology such that a GDF could be constructed safely and securely. Information about a GDF: • Geological Disposal is the internationally recognised way to dispose of higher-activity radioactive waste and involves a series of highly engineered vaults located up to 1,000 metres deep in a suitable rock formation. Combined with manmade barriers, this protects the environment and keeps the waste safe and secure while the radioactivity decays naturally to safe levels. • Successive UK governments have endorsed deep geological disposal, and there are similar programmes already under way in Canada, Finland, France, Sweden and Switzerland. • Initial construction is likely to span approximately 10 years and employ up to 2,000 people during the peak phase, with underground construction continuing as the facility expands gradually over its operating life of more than 100 years. • A GDF is also expected to support thousands of jobs, both at the facility and in the wider supply chain, as well as generating wide-ranging contract opportunities for local businesses. • The invitation to open discussions and get involved in the GDF programme remains open to any community organisation, local authority, business or individual in England or Wales. A RWML official, Mike Brophy, who heads up stakeholder relations, and who made a presentation to the NTW ‘Aarhus Forum’ on Wednesday (but forgot to mention the Allerdale development to his wider European audience, explained the situation from RWML’s perspective, in the following blog published on Thursday but clearly written at least as early as the day before. What good will the GDF do for its community? https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2021/01/14/what-good-will-the-gdf-do-for-its-community/ Posted by: Mike Brophy - Head of Community Engagement at Radioactive Waste Management, Posted on: 14 January 2021 - Categories: Waste management Long-term benefits A community that hosts a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste will help solve a huge problem for the UK, not just for now, but once and for all. And for the community itself, the benefits linked to this £multi-billion investment will also be immense. Funding benefits would start quickly, and jobs benefits would go on to last for generations. Any infrastructure project of £billions will create thousands of jobs, many of them highly skilled. What makes a GDF different, is that while the initial GDF construction phase will stretch over around 10 years and require a workforce of up to 2,000 during the peak period – the total construction and operation will take well over 100 years, employing local people and supporting local businesses all the time. Construction activities will continue throughout its operational lifetime as the network of tunnels and vaults are extended stage by stage. A GDF will be receiving waste for more than a century and is expected to support thousands of jobs, both full-time at the facility and, more indirectly, in the supply chain. Local opportunities Some jobs will require external specialists, but many skills will be available locally, along with suppliers. We plan to recruit as many local people and businesses as possible, as well as invest in training to build sufficient expertise for the operational years ahead. When we understand more about a potential location, we’ll be able to develop a clearer picture. A GDF requires a skilled workforce and would also create wide-ranging future training opportunities Just as Sellafield in Cumbria has attracted an influx of specialised nuclear businesses and led to the establishment of Britain’s Energy Coast, with nuclear-focused educational initiatives, so a GDF would attract inward investment. Generations of people will have opportunities develop their skills and take advantage of new employment and training initiatives. Well-paid work also increases spending power, supporting a wide range of local businesses. Amenities and infrastructure A GDF could also require associated infrastructure such as enhanced road, rail networks, or portside improvements. In Sweden, for example, plans for a GDF include a new ferry terminal and train services linking the host community of Forsmark to the capital city, Stockholm. Depending on the location eventually selected, infrastructure upgrades may be required In the UK, the host community will develop a vision for the long term, which could include better transport links, broadband, education, healthcare facilities or environmental improvements. Remember how spoil from the London 2012 Olympic Park construction was used to create a new nature reserve? As we move forward and are able to focus, for example, on a realistic geological setting in a specific area, RWM will commission a detailed study of the anticipated requirements for skills, expertise and training. Investing in the community Of course, a GDF will also bring significant benefits well ahead of construction. Before we even contemplate construction, we need a community’s informed consent, which can involve a commitment to asking questions, reading resources, attending meetings and more. To avoid overburdening a community, government funding is available to cover the costs of meetings and seeking out information from print or online sources. The opportunity to take part in such a massive decision is also about communities deciding what they want for their own future. Once members of the Working Group and the wider community, together with Radioactive Waste Management, arrive at the point where they wish to form a Community Partnership, community investment funding of up to £1 million a year will be available. A Community Partnership forms after the Working Group has engaged locally and identified one or more prospective Search Areas. This figure rises to up to £2.5 million a year once deep borehole investigations start, part of the process to understand the geology. Early funding available And in allocating resources, the Community Partnership will listen first and foremost to local views and priorities, for example, supporting sports, economic development, community wellbeing, investing in young people, expanding libraries, etc. Local people will be able to seek funding for relevant projects. The commitment to early funding arose from reviewing previous GDF discussions which ended in 2013. Throughout the process, people understood that the GDF would have brought massive benefits – but when the process ended, none of those benefits could be realised. Now, communities can use the investment funding before any commitment to a GDF, benefitting from engaging in the process whatever the outcome. Everyone benefits The combination of different funding, investments and other benefits means that a GDF will improve life for the host community’s people now, as well as over the facility’s multi-generational life. Before I joined Radioactive Waste Management, one of my jobs was setting up a charity for a utility company. I had to find ways to make sure the company’s charity work wasn’t just handing out dollops of money, but actually making a difference. Supporting infrastructure and other long-term projects translates community investment into real social good. Improving assets such as schools or the landscape is one of the fairest ways to ensure everyone benefits over the whole life of the project. There are many ways your community could gain from taking part in this project, to whatever extent you want. If you’d like to know more, feel free to Contact Us.g You may also be interested in: • Communities and GDF: Working in Partnership • Sweden's planned repository for spent fuel • How Sweden's site was chosen • Reflections from a community • Economic impact of Sellafield, 2017 report by Oxford Economics It is so full of distortions, fake facts and blatant untruths, it is hard to know where to start in correctingthis article. Let me just say even Mr Brophy must know the sub-headline Everyone benefits is total, demonstrable bullshit. It makes me cry they continue to write such appalling fake information. And finally, here is the additional local news story RWML also published.. If I lived in Allderdale, or any of the adjoining or nearby local districts in Cumbria, I would be very angry indeed at this article. Let me just say one of these local offers by Cumbrian landowners to render their locality a national sacrifice area proudly proclaims it is outside the world famous Lake District national park. It is, but the surface works to the 22 kilometers of tunnels, some possibly stretching out under the Irish Sea, would be if they go ahead, only two kilometres form the national park. What other country would do that? Allerdale GDF Working Group formed to discuss geological disposal of radioactive waste Today in Allerdale, a Working Group has been formed to start local engagement on whether somewhere in Allerdale could be a suitable location for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) for higher activity radioactive waste. This is the first stage of the search for a suitable site and to understand the views of people across Allerdale about possibly hosting a GDF. It follows the formation of a GDF Working Group in Copeland in November. The Working Group will include, among others, Allerdale Borough Council, Radioactive Waste Management (RWM), and private company GenR8 North Ltd. A GDF will only be built where there is both a willing community and a suitable site. Establishing a Working Group is just the starting point for engaging with people in a process that will take several years. No potential site has been chosen and this first step is about engaging with people across the community and beginning to understand their views. It’s about looking to identify both a Search Area for further consideration and the initial membership for a larger Community Partnership that could take the discussion further with RWM. If a potentially suitable site were to be identified by a Community Partnership in due course, then the community around that site will get to choose if they want to host a GDF. Jocelyn Manners-Armstrong, Independent Chair of the Allerdale GDF Working Group, said: “This is the beginning of a long process, and I want people to get involved from the very start to help to steer our way. A GDF in Allerdale could be a major boost to the area’s future prosperity and the skill base of its workforce. However, as a borough of outstanding natural beauty, with valuable habitats and cultural heritage, it’s also essential that any potential development doesn’t impact upon the things that make Allerdale a special place. That’s why it’s so important that the people of Allerdale have access to information, can ask questions and raise their issues and concerns before any decisions are made” “I believe the Working Group needs a Chair who is committed to making sure that people are heard and able to participate and engage. I'm passionate about protecting our natural environment, and also about the sustainability of our communities, so I look forward to starting this process and meeting local people. As Independent Chair it's my job to challenge, ask questions and ensure the process is rigorous, transparent and evidence based”. Mark Walker, Director of GenR8 North Ltd said “We came forward with a proposal to consider Allerdale and we’re clear that the National Park must be excluded. We don’t have a specific site in mind, but as the UK is going to build a GDF, we believe West Cumbria should get the opportunity to host it. We’re just kicking off the process - any future decision needs to be based on accurate, factual analysis of the geological conditions, and crucially, should be taken by local people” “I think we owe it to our future generations to deliver a long-term sustainable solution for this waste. It’s a legacy we simply have to deal with and surface storage as we have today, mostly nearby at Sellafield, is only temporary. We want to see how a GDF could help secure the long-term economic, skills-based regeneration of West Cumbria. We shouldn’t underestimate the potential a project like this could have, particularly around unlocking investment in infrastructure and the development of sustainable skilled jobs”. Councillor Marion Fitzgerald, Executive Member, Allerdale Borough Council, said “Allerdale’s participation in the Working Group is not a signal that the council has decided that a GDF should come here, that will be for the people to decide. What we do want is to make sure that our residents are aware of what a GDF coming to Allerdale could mean for them in terms of the potential benefits associated with this national infrastructure project. This is a long-term project that could deliver significant long-term benefits in terms of investment in infrastructure, jobs and skills, that is why it is so important that our community has an opportunity to be involved in the process”. All engagement information can be found at: https://allerdale.workinginpartnership.org.uk ENDS Media Contacts Duncan Flint - RWM Mobile: 07803495577 Email: gdfinfo-allerdale@nda.gov.uk Notes 1. A GDF will be made up of highly engineered vaults and tunnels located deep underground or deep in the rocks under the seabed, designed to protect people and the environment and keep the radioactive waste safe and secure while the radioactivity naturally decays to safe levels. 2. Successive UK Governments, supported by scientific advice, agree that this is the right long-term solution for our higher activity radioactive waste, and there is overwhelming international consensus, with similar programmes now underway in Canada, Finland, France, Sweden, Switzerland and other countries. 3. The independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) recommends that geological disposal, coupled with safe and secure interim storage, is the best available approach for the long-term management of the UK’s higher activity radioactive waste. 4. The search for a host community is a nationwide process, based on community consent, and includes detailed investigations to make sure there is a suitable site to construct a safe and secure GDF. If the independent regulators don’t agree that a GDF can be designed, constructed and operated safely and securely in a location, then it won’t be built. About the Allerdale Working Group The Working Group in Allerdale is made up of an interested party (GenR8 North Ltd) which first asked RWM to consider whether there was any potential for a GDF to be located in the area, an independent Chair, independent facilitator, RWM and Allerdale Borough Council. The group will begin local discussions and fact-finding with the community. Jocelyn Manners-Armstrong is the independent Chair of the Allerdale GDF Working Group. A former member of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority for the past eight years, where she served as deputy Chair, Jocelyn is committed to the protection of the natural environment. Jocelyn has also run a national legal charity, supporting refugee organisations, and served on boards of several charities, including a range of roles for Citizens Advice. She has also previously served as a lay member of the local health group of Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust and as an independent member of Cumbria Police Authority. Jocelyn is also Chief Executive of a business and IT consultancy supporting customers in the IT and media sectors. About the GDF siting Process Establishing a Working Group is just the starting point for engaging with the community, in a process that will take several years. The Working Group will identify and propose a Search Area for further consideration in the search for potentially suitable sites, engage citizens across the community to begin to understand their views, and recruit initial members for a Community Partnership with RWM that could take the process further forward. Setting up the longer-term Community Partnership will trigger access to an immediate £1 million per year of community investment funding, available for projects and initiatives that drive economic development of the area, improve the local environment, or community well-being. This figure will increase to £2.5 million per year per community if deep borehole drilling investigations are undertaken, but the major benefit is how a GDF might help the community’s very long-term vision for itself. A key task for the Community Partnership therefore will be developing that vision, which can underpin future significant additional investment in the community that succeeds in hosting a GDF. The relevant Principal Local Authorities on the Community Partnership can agree to withdraw the community at any point. When ready, the relevant Principal Local Authorities on the Community Partnership will decide on a timeframe for seeking community agreement through a Test of Public Support (e.g. a local referendum, a formal consultation, or statistically representative polling). About RWM Radioactive Waste Management, formed in 2014, is responsible for geological disposal to manage higher activity waste in England and Wales by finding a willing community and suitable site to construct and operate a UK GDF for the long-term management of higher-activity radioactive waste. RWM is a public organisation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Speaking truth unto [nuclear] power

Here are two letters sent to The Daily Mail and The Guardian newspapers respectively on truth and nuclear power: The new Business and Energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has got off to a very bad start, literally believing nonsense about nuclear power as reported in your business news article (“New Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng must 'get his skates on' and make 2021 the year Government finally commits to building nuclear projects,” Daily Mail, 11 January 2021; https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-9131929/Get-nuclear-plans-Kwasi-Kwarteng-told.html) He told a lobby group, Westminster Energy Forum (WEF), in an interview released on 8 January that it is very difficult to "see anything better than nuclear power" in terms of “clean, low-carbon” power, which will be a key part of the UK's energy system in 2050, adding illogically "Nuclear power is going to be part of the mix and once you've accepted that, then you have to think about which particular projects you're going to promote.” (“Nuclear stands out as clean, dispatchable firm power, says Kwarteng,” WNN, 9 January 2021; https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-stands-out-as-clean-dispatchable-firm-powe) That is putting the very expensive and dangerous nuclear cart before the energy horse! Your article also mentions the plans, supported by Mr Kwartang’s Business department, of a Rolls-Royce-led project for half a dozen or more mini-nuclear (small modular, SMR) reactors across Britain. What is not mentioned by Rolls Royce - and other SMR cheerleaders – is, were they ever to be built, such SMRs would have to be built very close to towns and cities, as the re-use of the surplus heat in district heating schemes is essential to make them anywhere near economic. I look forward to ministers like Mr Kwarteng trying to persuade residents that a brand new shiny nuclear power plant at the end of their garden is both an attractive and safe idea. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your on line report of the Terra Carta initiative at a major event hosted in Paris on 11 January (“Prince Charles urges businesses to sign Terra Carta pledge to put planet first,” 11 January 2021; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/11/prince-charles-businesses-terra-carta-pledge-planet-first-nature-age-of-extinction ) lists inter alia the financial firms BlackRock, Bank of America and HSBC as supporters. Good for them! But also listed among the backers are giant oil company BP ( who a decade ago changed its name, briefly, to “Beyond Petroleum”) and Heathrow airport, who are currently intent on building a carbon-belching new giant runway at their west London airport. In their Preface, the supporters of the Terra Carta, assert that they “acknowledge that the required global trajectory is a sustainable one, where the private sector has a critical role to play. To accelerate along this trajectory, a ‘future of industry’ and ‘future of economy’ approach must be taken”...and the need for net zero commitments to be achieved by 2050 and, where possible, much sooner. “ ( https://www.sustainable-markets.org/TerraCarta_Charter_Jan11th2021.pdf) How are the activities of a giant fossil fuels company and one of the planet’s biggest airports compatible with that ‘global trajectory’? Moreover, in the final section of the 18 page manifesto on ‘Reinvigorating Innovation’ it asserts that “in support of gamer-changers, and in partnership with academic and research institutions, it encourages accelerated investment into STEM, (science, technology, engineering and maths) Innovation and R&D in the following areas, along with other potential solutions.. viii Nuclear fusion.” Including this long promised- but never delivering - chimera technology is misplaced. Were fusion ever to work commercially it would produce significant nuclear wastes (albeit of a different type from current nuclear fission plants) and radioactively contaminated nuclear production units. This fails to meet the overarching sustainability principle of the Terra Carta project.