Caffracer

The carnivore hierarchy isn't ribeye at the top. It's ground beef. You're getting amino acids from the muscle, collagen and glycine from the connective tissue, and a fat ratio that actually fuels you rather than leaving you starving an hour later. It's the trim from every cut, blended into one. The cheapest thing in the meat aisle is also the most complete. Aldi. Tesco. Whichever pack is on offer. That's the diet. The boutique steak crowd are paying a premium to eat less of the cow.

Brendan O’Neill explains what must be completely obvious to everyone by now. Nailed it again. 🎯

Pass it on if you feel the same.

1900: The egg is described in nutrition texts as nature's most complete food. Doctors recommend it for invalids, infants, and the elderly. A growing child is given one or two a day. A working man eats four for breakfast. 1950: The egg is implicated in a hypothesis about cholesterol and heart disease. The hypothesis is unproven. The egg is told it must wait. 1968: The American Heart Association issues an official recommendation to limit egg consumption to three per week. The recommendation is based on a single observational study and the personal opinion of Ancel Keys. 1973: The first egg-substitute product is launched. It is composed of egg whites with added preservatives, gums, and synthetic colour. It is sold as the heart-healthy alternative to the egg, which has been on the human breakfast table for ten thousand years. 1980 to 2010: The British and American populations consume billions of fewer eggs per year than they did in 1950. Cardiovascular disease continues to rise. Obesity rises sharply. Type 2 diabetes triples. 2015: The United States Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, after reviewing the entirety of the available evidence, removes the recommendation to limit dietary cholesterol. The egg is, the committee states, no longer a nutrient of concern. 2025: The egg is back in fashion. The egg is on the breakfast menu of the trendy restaurant. The egg is in the protein-focused cookbook. The egg is in the influencer's morning routine. During the fifty-five years the egg was banned, the egg did not change. The egg has been the egg the entire time. The advice has changed. The egg has not. The advice was wrong. Nobody has apologised. The grandmothers who kept feeding their grandchildren eggs through the entire 1980s, against the explicit advice of every health authority in the Western world, were correct. The grandmothers should be on the committee.

You’re the energy secretary. Yet you don’t seem to know that BP’s ‘excess profits’ come from its global oil trading division, which is not subject to UK ‘excess profits’ windfall tax, not from its North Sea activities, which are. Remarkable.

Parliament Cannot Hold Him Accountable. But You Can. And Thursday 7th May Is Your Chance. The Speaker Lindsay Hoyle has allowed a vote on whether Keir Starmer should face a privileges committee inquiry. It will almost certainly be lost. Labour holds a working majority of around 160 seats. The government will whip its MPs to vote against referral on Tuesday. The arithmetic of the 2024 landslide means parliamentary accountability is, in practical terms, in Starmer's gift. He will not gift it to himself. Labour MP Emma Reynolds has already delivered the line every Labour MP will be handed. It has been proven categorically that Starmer did not lie. There does not need to be an investigation. That position is constitutionally illiterate. The entire purpose of a privileges committee is to determine independently whether Parliament was misled, not to accept the government's own assurance that it was not. But it will be repeated from every Labour bench on Tuesday regardless. Before that vote is cast, it is worth stating plainly what is being voted on and how it compares to the last time this process was used. Boris Johnson misled Parliament about parties during a pandemic. He told the Commons no rules were broken. Rules were broken. He attended gatherings himself. He was fined by the police. The conduct was serious and the misleading of Parliament was deliberate. Johnson resigned as an MP before the committee could recommend a ninety day suspension. Keir Starmer told Parliament on three separate occasions that full due process was followed in vetting Peter Mandelson, and that the security services had given him clearance for the role. The security services had recommended against clearance. The Foreign Office overrode that recommendation under what Olly Robbins described as constant pressure from Downing Street. Starmer then told the Commons at PMQs that no pressure existed whatsoever, selectively quoting Robbins's testimony to create an impression directly contradicted by the sworn evidence sitting in the committee transcript. Johnson misled Parliament about parties. Starmer misled Parliament about national security. A man with documented connections to Russian missile defence infrastructure and Chinese state enterprises was placed in Washington with the highest available security clearance after the security services said no. That is not a comparison of equivalents. The conduct Starmer is accused of is considerably more serious in its implications for the country's safety. The privileges committee vote will fail. Labour MPs will vote with the government. A small number may rebel but not enough to change the outcome. The constitutional mechanism designed to hold a Prime Minister accountable will be neutralised by the majority he holds. Which leaves May 7. Every Labour councillor standing for election on May 7 is standing on Keir Starmer's record. The missing formal record of the Mandelson appointment decision. The vetting file that Cat Little would not discuss in open committee. The undeclared meeting with Palantir. The selective quotation of sworn testimony at PMQs. The sacking of a civil servant for following the rules. The blocking of a key witness from giving oral evidence. All of it is on the ballot paper on May 7, even if none of it is printed there. These are the elections this government attempted to defer. It failed. Labour MPs can be whipped. Council candidates cannot protect themselves from their own voters. The ballot box on May 7 is the accountability mechanism that cannot be managed, delayed or spun. It is the one process in British public life that Starmer's majority cannot override. Parliament will not hold Starmer to account on Tuesday. The question is whether the country will begin to on May 7.

Govt tonight pushed thru to the next session the Bill which will resume prosecutions of British Army veterans by activist lawyers gleefully abetted by Lord Harmer. Cue further exodus of soldiers. What other country actively harms itself - its safety and its honour - in this way?

I served in various capacities in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Afghanistan. I despise Lord Hermer. Of course we must hold our military personnel to the highest standards in both peace and war, including the Rules of War. They would want and expect nothing less. But war is, by its very nature, the most extreme of human experiences. It is brutal. It is unforgiving. It is deadly. It is often chaotic, confused and terrifying and, in that environment, our armed forces are tasked with destroying the enemy through the controlled application of overwhelming violence. It is an environment that would no doubt break Hermer and his ilk. They are not worthy so much as to lick the boots of the amazing men and women who defend our nation - people prepared to risk their lives in the blood and the dust of foreign lands to keep slugs like him safe at home. I do not use such words lightly, but Hermer is scum.

According to Labour MP, Emma Reynolds, we’re spending too much time talking about Peter Mandelson. A reminder that her party spent SIX months talking about a piece of birthday cake in Tupperware, whether a Zoom quiz was a party & mentioning gatherings where Boris wasn’t present.

The Government's Troubles Bill is nothing but a pernicious and vexatious attack against our veterans who served bravely in Northern Ireland. Labour is now scrutinising decisions made in split seconds under extreme circumstances, by soldiers doing their duty to their country. Today I read out a statement from Soldier B condemning this lawfare as the Government prepares to carry over this harmful Bill into the next parliamentary session.

There is a piece of modern received wisdom so absurd it should not have survived contact with anyone over the age of ten. That eating chicken is the kinder choice. That the cow is the heavy moral cost on the conscience. That if you really must eat meat, the responsible thing is to eat the bird. Have a proper look at the bird. A commercial broiler chicken in the UK lives for 35 to 42 days. She is hatched in an industrial incubator, dumped into a shed with tens of thousands of others, and grown to slaughter weight on formulated grain in less time than it takes a Boy Scout to earn a senior badge. She has been bred to put on muscle so fast that her legs cannot reliably hold her by week five. Birds across the shed develop hock burn from sitting in their own ammoniated bedding because they can no longer stand. Many die before slaughter from the metabolic stress of growing too quickly. She has never seen daylight. She has never stood on grass. She has never had a name, because the human raising her is in charge of tens of thousands of birds and could not pick her out of a lineup if you held a gun to his head. This is not a freak case. This is 95% of British chicken. The cow on the hill lived for six years. She had a name. She walked, grazed, calved, watched the dog, watched the farmer, watched the seasons turn. She had a best friend in the herd, because cows form bonded friendships and her farmer could tell you who hers was. Then, on a single bad day at the end of a long good life, she went. The chicken: thirty-five days of misery. The cow: six years of hillside and one bad day. The chicken arrived in your kitchen at £4. The cow arrived at £18 a kilo. You bought the chicken because it was kinder to the animal. The inversion is so total, so confidently held, and so loudly defended that you have to admire the marketing of it. The chicken did not think it was kinder. The cow does not think it was kinder. The farmer does not think it was kinder. You think it was kinder. You should probably check who told you that.

What a letter

The British Vitamin D problem is not new. Britain sits between 50 and 58 degrees north. London is on the same latitude as Calgary. Edinburgh is level with Moscow. From October to March, the sun does not rise high enough above the horizon for the UVB wavelength your skin needs to actually reach the ground. You can stand naked in February noon sunlight on the south coast and produce essentially zero vitamin D. This is six months of the year, every year, for the entire history of human habitation on these islands. The British have known this, in their bones, for ten thousand years. Look at what was eaten in winter, before anyone had ever heard the term cholecalciferol: Oily fish. Herring, mackerel, sprats, kippers. Three or four times a week from October to March. A single kipper carries roughly 250 IU of D3. Cod liver oil. Spooned into every British child between 1850 and 1980, a teaspoon at a time. Distributed free by the Ministry of Food in the war on the explicit understanding that British children needed it through the dark months. Rickets fell by 90 per cent between 1940 and 1960. Cod liver oil was the reason. Liver. Eaten weekly in working households until 1985. Egg yolks from hens that had been outside in the summer. Grass-fed butter, made from cream from cows on summer pasture, the fat-soluble vitamins banked into the cream and eaten through the winter. The British solution to the British problem, evolved over centuries by people who could not articulate the biochemistry but knew, with absolute certainty, what kept the children growing through the dark months. Then between 1955 and 2010, the British removed almost all of them. Cod liver oil reduced to a niche supplement. Liver dropped from weekly to never. Oily fish consumption halved. Eggs rationed by the Department of Health on cholesterol grounds since retracted. Butter replaced with margarine carrying no fat-soluble vitamins at all. Result, by 2020: roughly half of all British adults are vitamin D deficient by the end of winter. A third of children. Rickets has reappeared in British paediatric wards. The NHS now recommends every adult take a supplement from October to March. This is the NHS recommending in 2026 what the British diet was doing automatically in 1926. The geography has not changed. The latitude is the same. The sun is still inadequate from October. The food used to handle it. The kippers are still being smoked at Craster. The cod liver oil is on the chemist's shelf. The liver is at the butcher. The butter is in the dairy aisle, behind the spreads. The sun was always seasonal. The food was the backup. The backup got thrown out. Get it back.

Yesterday's edition of the Financial Times carried a lengthy interview with Lord Hermer KC, the present Attorney General of the United Kingdom. If you haven't seen it: oh, boy. The interview was part of the FT's fluffy "Lunch With" feature, a sympathetic profile format whose previous subjects have included most of the 'grown ups in the room' of the British establishment over the last 40 years. The Hermer instalment was, by the FT's own pitch, an opportunity for the Attorney General to "open up about the Keir Starmer people don't see," and to explain the merits of the Chagos deal. The piece appeared. The comments section opened. And in those comments, you could see a country on the precipice of major change. The Financial Times's readership is not, to put it as politely as the situation will allow, known for its raucous lower-class anger. It is the readership of senior partners at City firms, central bankers, retired civil servants, retired ambassadors, and the broader metropolitan managerial caste of Britain at the fatter end. It is, on almost every available political question, the most reliably establishment-tarian readership of any newspaper in the United Kingdom. The comments, before they were closed, were so brutal that readers were openly asking for the article to be withdrawn and threatening to cancel their subscriptions in numbers the FT had not seen before. When the FT readership turns on a Labour Attorney General, the Labour Attorney General has a problem. If you were wondering what caused such an outbreak of fury from the terribly polite class, here's a summary of the last three decades of Lord Hermer's career. Lord Hermer, before he became Attorney General, made his name and his living as a human-rights barrister whose principal practice, for a meaningful slice of the relevant period, was the prosecution of civil claims against the British state. Suing his own country. He got particular mileage out of pursuing claims against the British armed forces, on behalf of foreign nationals alleging mistreatment by British servicemen and women in the field. The most notorious of these matters is the Al-Sweady litigation. Lord Hermer was lead counsel for eight Iraqi claimants who alleged that British soldiers had murdered, mutilated, and tortured Iraqi prisoners after the Battle of Danny Boy in May 2004. The claims occupied the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Military Police, and a public inquiry for the better part of a decade. The inquiry, at its conclusion, found the claims to be "wholly without foundation," and the result of "deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility." On 22 April this year, the Daily Telegraph published more than 25,000 pages of contemporaneous emails and legal documents from Lord Hermer's chambers' handling of the Al-Sweady litigation. Among the documents was an internal communication in his own writing, advising on how to "get the big story out there" and noting the need for "wriggle room if the killings did not in fact happen." Today's edition of the same paper carries further documents from the same info dump showing Hermer privately criticising serving British soldiers, in correspondence with his legal team, while praising publicly the Iraqi lawyers whose own clients the inquiry had found to be lying. Hermer has, rightfully, been formally referred Lord Hermer to the Bar Standards Board for serious professional misconduct. Lord Glasman, a Labour peer who knows him personally, has called him "an arrogant...fool." Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister, has said directly that Hermer "aided false war crimes claims against British troops." (Fancy losing a moral high-ground to Boris Johnson...) This is the Attorney General. He is the chief legal officer of the Crown. The man whose entire constitutional function is to ensure that the legal interests of the British state are properly defended in the highest forums is a man who, before assuming the post, made his career attacking the British state on behalf of liars, liars whose lies were specifically calibrated to destroy the reputations of British servicemen and women. There is a word for this kind of legal practice when it is done at scale and in a particular direction. The word is "lawfare." The deployment of judicial mechanisms as a substitute for politics by other means. The systematic use of human-rights frameworks, judicial review, and aggressive litigation to constrain the actions of one's own state, to attack one's own armed forces, and to advance a worldview that the elected institutions of one's country have repeatedly declined to advance through the ballot box. It is, at its outer edge, a form of treason that wears a wig. And Hermer, who practices it, is an enemy of our state.

Why did this government withdraw the minesweeper from the Gulf and decommission our frigate there with no replacements? Why has it withdrawn the refuelling plane from defending the Falklands? Why is it running down our defences and not using most of our naval ships?

The Killing Moon Song by Echo & the Bunnymen | 1984 Under blue moon, I saw you So soon you’ll take me Up in your arms, too late to beg you Or cancel it, though I know it must be The killing time Unwillingly mine

Every time I hear someone like Rycroft call for us to rejoin it confirms my belief that it was because of senior civil servants like him that we wasted the opportunities presented by leaving Starmer, the most passionate EU supporter, may be on the way out but the blob inside Whitehall are desperate to rejoin so they can simply be told what to do again by Brussels. They have no confidence in our country but they underestimate just how out of touch they are with the feelings of those they look down on from their cosy establishment.

Last time I saw a goal like this for Rovers was Chris Martin’s against stevenge. Pleasing on the eye these #onemoreyear

1980…