Now they’re erasing Rowling from her own damn work.

JK Rowling’s name has been downgraded in a trailer promoting the latest film of her Fantastic Beasts series amid a row over her views on trans identification.

Unlike previous adverts for the franchise, Rowling’s name barely features in the two-and-a-half-minute trailer for the third instalment, Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, which is out next year.

The new trailer opens with the caption “Warner Bros invites you” while the 2018 film Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald said “JK Rowling invites you” and credited her with writing and producing the film.

It is only at the end of the new trailer that a small publishing rights note bearing Rowling’s name appears.

Yes yes yes but Trans Women Are The Most Vulnerable so shut up.

New guidance:

The armed forces are to be given new guidance on “inclusive language” after the Defence Secretary said he is “unhappy” with the current advice.

Inclusive of what? Inclusive how? Speaking of guidance on language, how about not using the word “inclusive” in this vague but threatening way?

The MoD said its Inclusive Language Guide 2021 was a “practical toolkit” to help servicemen and women understand why “certain words or use of language is hurtful or non-inclusive”.

But words and language don’t have to be “inclusive” of everything at all times – if they did they couldn’t do their jobs as words and language. If words are to mean anything they have to be non-inclusive, because if they include everything they might as well include nothing. Meaning is inherently exclusionary.

The 30-page pamphlet said the words “woman” and “female” “mean different things but are often used interchangeably”, adding: “Referring to women as females is perceived by many as reducing a woman to her reproductive parts and abilities.”

Yes, that can be true. “Females” can sound downright insulting…but on the other hand they don’t exactly mean different things. They have different overtones, but the literal meaning is the same.

But then they tip their hand.

“Not all women are biologically female, and the conflation of ‘female’ to ‘woman’ erases gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community.”

All women are biologically female; that’s what the word means. Pretending that not all women are female erases women, so don’t do that. “Gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community” don’t matter more than women do, and there are way fewer of them, so don’t go redefining what “female” means to tickle the egos of a tiny narcissistic minority. Or to put it another way, cut your ties to Stonewall.

The Telegraph understands there are no plans to disband or redirect the MoD’s Diversity and Inclusion Directorate, which was responsible for the guide.

The news came as the new CDS, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said the push for greater diversity in the military is not about being “woke”, but addressing the “woeful” lack of women and ethnic minorities in the forces.

If you want more women in the forces, don’t be telling women that not all women are female.

Another item from the Journal of Lesbian Studies –

But don’t go thinking other women who are branded with the scarlet letters of TERF are innocent of wrongdoing. No no no no no no don’t think that for a second – that would be very wrong, in fact it would make you a TERF.

Does violence against trans people occur with depressing regularity? Is there a citation for that? (No, there is not.) Are trans people murdered at a grossly disproportionate rate? Is there a citation for that? (No, there is not.) Is there a “cultural panic” about “transness”? Well, that one depends on who is doing the labeling.

Anyway. It doesn’t get more “Do it to Julia” than this fetid little pile of dung.

Of course he did.

Billionaire Tesla founder Elon Musk lashed out at Senator Elizabeth Warren on Twitter, calling the Massachusetts Democrat a “Karen” after she accused him of “freeloading” by not paying his fair share of taxes.

But Karen is definitely not a substitute for “bitch,” no no no not at all. It’s about the haircut.

Musk engaged in the Twitter spat with Warren on Tuesday, one day after the senator shared an article about the billionaire being named Time magazine’s person of the year. Warren tweeted that the “rigged tax code” should be changed “so The Person of the Year will actually pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else.”

But he’s Good for the Economy.

The world’s richest person responded to the senator by tweeting a 2019 Fox News opinion article calling the then-presidential candidate a “fraud” while maintaining that she had spread “lies about being Native American” in order “to benefit from affirmative action or other preferential programs.” Musk captioned his link with the comment, “Stop projecting!”

Warren on Monday also retweeted a tweet from Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington, that contended it was “‘TIME’ for Elon Musk to pay his fair share of taxes.” The senator responded that she had “a plan for that.”

Earlier this year, Warren, Jayapal and Pennsylvania Representative Brendan Boyle introduced the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, a proposal that would place a 2 percent annual tax on households with a net worth above $50 million and a 3 percent annual tax on households with net worths above $1 billion.

So Karen of them.

Unusually stupid.

How did Rowling attack “the most vulnerable population in the world”?

So…rapists who identify as women are the most vulnerable population in the world? No, I don’t think that can be right. There’s the being a rapist bit first of all – raping isn’t being vulnerable, it’s being raped that’s being vulnerable. Then there’s the part about being a man. Men who rape: most vulnerable in world? No, I’m not buying that.

Let’s think of some genuinely vulnerable populations in the world. Women in Afghanistan, there’s one. Then you can add women in a long long long list of countries – women are vulnerable because of religious misogyny, because of poverty, because of violence, because of preferential treatment for sons and brothers, because of tradition – the list is long.

Uighurs. People in Somalia, people in Syria, people on Pacific islands that are disappearing because of climate change, people in countries torn apart by war, people in authoritarian countries, people in areas ruined by drought, people who have lost everything in wild fires – I could go on like this for hours. There are literally billions of very vulnerable people in the world, and I don’t think for one second that men in prosperous countries who identify as women are anything like as vulnerable as that. Many are subject to ridicule or hostility or both, I don’t doubt that, but the hyperbole that’s built up about how “vulnerable” they are is ludicrous. And as for rapists – which was the subject of Rowling’s tweet – how about the vulnerability of the woman raped? Eh?

AngryBlackLady full of shit on this one.

Sean Ingle notes that the discussion has changed.

The Guardian has obtained a letter, written in 2003 by Dr Richard Budgett, in which he discusses the consequences of trans women competing in women’s sport. Responding to a government inquiry, Budgett, then at the British Olympic Association, states: “The effect of allowing male transsexuals to compete as women would be to make competition unfair and potentially dangerous in some sports and would undermine women’s sports.”

Ya think? It’s still weird that anyone would have to say that, let alone that he would “evolve” to stop saying it.

Society has shifted. Language has changed. Budgett is now medical and scientific director at the International Olympic Committee. And his views, according to IOC sources, have evolved – particularly when it comes to finding ways to balance the need for inclusion and fairness in sport.

There is no “need for inclusion” in sport of the “men can compete against women” type. Inclusion in sport should mean making sure disadvantaged people get more opportunities and help; it should not mean making sure men replace some women in women’s sport.

A controversial new IOC framework, drawn up in part by Budgett, adopts a strikingly different stance. While stressing that men’s and women’s competition should be “fair and safe”, it also tells sports that, “until evidence determines otherwise”, trans athletes “should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage”.

As I pointed out the other day, that’s a sneaky evasive cowardly way of putting it, because the issue isn’t “trans athletes” but men. Men have an unfair and disproportionate competitive advantage over women. Everybody knows that, but way too many people are determined to cover it up.

This is something being done to women, and there is no equivalent being done to men. Wouldn’t you think that should be enough to alert people to how fucked up it is? There can’t be any equivalent, ever, because men are bigger and stronger than women, end of story. The equivalent being done to men would have to be allowing adult male gorillas to compete against men. I don’t see any plans to do that currently.

No magic bullet, no one-size-fits-all policy can satisfy all sides. The issue involves competing rights and strong emotions. Worryingly a recent UK Sports Councils Equality Group report also found that women in sport were told to keep quiet by their national governing bodies and feared abuse on social media if they voiced their opinions.

The issue does not involve “competing rights.” There is no “right” for men to compete against women and shatter all their records, while the women are told to shut up. That’s not a right, it’s a fucking insult.

Yet perhaps times are changing. At the Sport Resolutions dispute resolution service last week several experts were able to discuss openly and courteously what sports should do next. It made for fascinating listening. For David Grevemberg, of the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, inclusion mattered most. And if sport had to radically change, then it should. “Are there ways, that are not infringing on human rights, to create a level playing field?” he asked. “Are there other conditions that we can create – for example staggered starts in the 100m? Or delayed starts?”

No. Just no. Stop. Leave the women alone. Letting men compete against women creates a very tilted playing field indeed.

Joan Smith on Rowling and the loonies who long to CanCel her:

Gender extremists hate Rowling not just because she is famous and has a platform, but because her barbs hit home. She uses language precisely, avoiding ad feminam abuse and hyperbole, while they — how can I put this politely? — do not.

It’s about this business of ratifying men as women on a mere assertion. If a man says he’s a woman then he’s a woman, says the Scottish government, and if he’s a woman why then if he blots his copybook he gets imprisoned with his fellow women.

Police Scotland admitted as much in a response to a question from a former SNP justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, about how they would deal with rapists when the new law comes into force. Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie confirmed that a rapist who was ‘born male, but who identifies as a female’ could be recorded as a woman without even going through the process of getting a gender recognition certificate. This is already happening in England and Wales, where a staggering 436 male-bodied sex offenders were classified as women between 2012 and 2018.

Rowling’s intervention is crucial because this issue, more than trans-identified males demanding to use women’s toilets or changing rooms, is one that exercises a wide swathe of opinion. People baulk at the prospect of vulnerable women prisoners, many of them victims of domestic violence, being forced to share intimate spaces with men who have been convicted of serious sex offences. Rowling has experienced domestic abuse herself, so she knows how unpalatable this is. She also knows exactly how and when to intervene — and that makes her a very dangerous adversary.

Just ask Seth Abramson.

Erm what?

Via Katie Herzog:

Has “the rise of transphobia” made “lesbian identity” obsolete? One “form of marginalization equates lesbianism with transphobia.” The true, traditional, correct, acceptable, approved lesbian identity is “political, nonessentialist, intersectional, and community grounded.” You were probably thinking it was to do with women loving women, but that’s obsolete. The new improved lesbianism is “inclusive of trans, nonbinary, and cis women.” Obviously “cis women” are last in the list because really, who gives a shit about women? Men who call themselves women are so much more fascinating and enlightened and – let’s face it – sexy than boring old dreary tedious women. If we understand lesbianism as “grounded in politics of inclusion” i.e. dominated by men we can fight climate change.

This is published by something that calls itself Journal of Lesbian Studies.

Yesterday at the hearing:

Prior to a unanimous vote to refer Mark Meadows for contempt of Congress charges, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the ranking Republican on the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, read a series of text messages she said Meadows received during the Capitol attack.

In the messages, several figures, including Donald Trump Jr. and Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, urge Meadows to get then-President Donald Trump to tell his supporters to leave the Capitol.

Cheney said Meadows, who was Trump’s White House chief of staff during the siege, turned over the materials before he stopped cooperating with the panel.

Cheney says Meadows is refusing to testify about text messages “that he admits are not privileged.”

On January 6^th, our Capitol building was attacked and invaded. The mob was summoned to Washington by President Trump. And, as many of those involved have admitted – on videotape, in social media, and in Federal District Court – they were provoked to violence by President Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen. On January 6^th, our Capitol building was attacked and invaded.

The violence was evident to all – it was covered in real time by almost every news channel. But, for 187 minutes, President Trump refused to act when action by our President was required, indeed essential, and compelled by his oath to our Constitution. Mr. Meadows received numerous text messages, which he has produced without any privilege claim – imploring that Mr. Trump take the specific action we all knew his duty required.

Emphasis mine. It’s clearly wrong and bad and illegal on its face but in addition to that he swore an oath to prevent it. That will mean precisely nothing to him, but that’s because he’s a psychopath, not because the oath is meaningless.

These texts leave no doubt: the White House knew exactly what was happening at the Capitol. Republican members of Congress and others wrote to Mark Meadows as the attack was underway:

-“Hey, Mark, protestors are literally storming the Capitol. Breaking windows on doors. Rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?”

-“We are under siege up here at the Capitol.”

-“They have breached the Capitol.”

-“There’s an armed standoff at the House Chamber door.”

-“We are all helpless.”

Dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials, urged immediate action by the President:

-“POTUS has to come out firmly and tell protestors to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed”

-“Mark, he needs to stop this. Now”

-“TELL THEM TO GO HOME”

-“POTUS needs to calm this shit down.”

Indeed, according to the records, multiple Fox News hosts knew the President needed to act immediately. They texted Meadows that:

-“Hey Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home…this is hurting all of us…he is destroying his legacy.” Laura Ingraham wrote.

-“Please get him on tv. Destroying everything you have accomplished.” Brian Kilmeade wrote.

-“Can he make a statement?…Ask people to leave the Capitol.” Sean Hannity urged.

As the violence continued, one of the President’s sons texted Meadows:

“He’s got to condemn this s*** Asap. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.” Donald Trump, Jr. texted.

Meadows responded: “I’m pushing it hard. I agree.”

But that was then. Now Meadows refuses to cooperate.

One of those “Sir I am the world’s greatest neurosurgeon” moments.

Wait for it.

Wait for it.

He mad.

Powerful arguments.

What an extraordinary title:

J K Rowling keeps tweeting and we keep wondering why

Given how easy and humdrum and normal it is for people to “keep tweeting,” that amounts to saying JK Rowling keeps talking and we (who’s we?) keep wondering why. A man wondering why a woman keeps talking, and calling himself “we” to boot – it doesn’t get much more smugly contemptuous of women than that.

The bonus is that the man is Noah Berlatsky, who is a [cough] controversial sort of fella himself.

Harry Potter author J K Rowling responded in strong terms today to comments by Police Scotland about their approach to gender identity. Police Scotland said that the police would respect the gender self-identification of people accused of sexual assault, and a number of media outlets published details.

Ah that’s such a nice anodyne soothing way of putting it. No mention of women, no mention of rape, just vague “people” and “respect” for “gender identity.” What he means is, Police Scotland said trans women accused of rape would still be treated as if they were women. Rape is about the most un-woman thing a man can do, and the police are surely well aware of this, especially in the wake of the abduction, rape, and murder of Sarah Everard by a cop. The fetish of “respect” for “gender identity” should not be treated as more important than a woman who has been raped.

This stupid man goes on:

Rowling has an established history of tweeting “gender-critical” views which many view as transphobic. In particular, she has embraced longstanding stereotypes which frame trans women as perpetrators of violence and especially of sexual violence.

No she has not. The point is that rapists are men, whether they are trans or not. That’s not the same as “trans people are rapists.” Not even close. This is very basic stuff. An editor should have thrown it in his face to re-do.

She’s also argued that trans women should not be allowed in women’s bathrooms because they are not really women and are therefore a danger to cis women.

We get to argue that. We get to continue to keep women’s “bathrooms” [toilets] women-only.

Rowling — through her tweets, her advocacy and her fiction — seems to imagine a world in which trans women are privileged predators working with a compliant police force to assault innocent cis women. In fact, trans women are a small, marginalized, vulnerable minority, who face terrifying rates of sexual violence from, among others, the police who are supposed to help them.

This is stupid childish drivel. Nobody claims that trans women are all predators; that’s not the issue. The issue is that they’re men, and we shouldn’t be forced to treat them as women in all circumstances and settings.

If a police captain said that their officers were not allowed to use racial slurs against Jewish or Black people accused of violence, would Rowling object? I doubt it. Should police be encouraged to use misogynist slurs against women, cis or trans, who are accused of crimes? Of course not.

Even stupider. Bargain basement. Why did the Independent commission this?

It’s my belief that if Rowling really wanted to advocate for victims of violence, she would advocate for trans women, who are disproportionately victims.

As opposed to women?

What an utter fool.

The Times on Naughty Rowling:

JK Rowling has reopened the row on gender after characterising as “Orwellian” a police policy in which a rape can be recorded as being committed by a woman if the attacker “identifies as a female”.

She hasn’t “reopened” anything because that row was never closed. It’s been raging along quite loudly for years now. What she has done is added her massive fame on the right side of the row again.

Her intervention came as Police Scotland confirmed they would log rapes by offenders with male genitalia as being carried out by a woman if the accused identified as female, regardless of whether they had legally changed gender.

I really couldn’t care less whether they have “legally changed gender” or not, if they have raped women. Legally changing gender shouldn’t be the issue here, because it’s with their sex that men rape women, and you can’t change that, legally or otherwise.

The controversial policy has again come under the spotlight after Kenny MacAskill, the former SNP justice secretary, asked how the force would deal with rapes under new laws to make it easier for people to self-identify as a different gender.

…

MacAskill, who defected to Alex Salmond’s Alba party in March, described Police Scotland’s stance as “dangerous”.

The MP for East Lothian said: “As a lawyer for 20 years and justice secretary for almost eight, I’ve seen some legal absurdities. But this tops it all and is dangerous. It’s physically impossible and is about dogma overriding common sense. Women prisoners are being harmed by this and vital crime statistics rendered useless.”

And on top of all that it’s just idiotic and childish.

Not all conservatives are damn fool anti-vaxxers.

Cue shocked intake of breath – “He wants us all dead!!”

Rebecca Solnit summarizes the danger:

The crisis isn’t just that we had a coup attempt almost a year ago, but that the Republican party has itself become so venal, so corrupt, so ruthless in its quest for power, that it seems assured that we will see further attempts to overrule any election outcomes they don’t like. Already the kind of election laws they’ve pushed across the country seem aimed at such goals, and voter suppression has long been one of their anti-democratic tactics (it played a substantial role in Trump’s 2016 win, and the genuine illegitimacies of that election – foreign interference, anomalies the recount might have uncovered had the Republicans not stopped it – were appropriated as false claims for 2020).

The Republicans made a devil’s bargain decades ago, when they decided that they would not change course to win the votes of an increasingly nonwhite, increasingly progressive people, but would try to suppress those who would vote against them. That is, they pitted themselves against democracy as participatory government and free and fair elections. The rhetoric of the far right makes it clear they are fearful and know their power will ebb if they cannot command and subvert the laws and elections of this nation, and they are aiming at some form of minority rule.

They have to rig the system in order to win, so they are rigging the system. They are hell bent on arranging things so that a conservative minority gets to rule a less conservative majority.

The crisis isn’t just that we had a coup attempt and have a political party that has gone rogue, but that much of the rest of the nation seems to be normalizing or forgetting or sleepwalking through the crisis. The warnings are getting more urgent.

“They’ve decided to burn it all down with us inside,” said NBC anchor Brian Williams on Thursday, in his parting words as an NBC anchor. Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii stated Sunday: “The road to autocracy is paved with overly chill responses from people who would see this all with great clarity if only it were happening in a faraway place.” Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy declared, “This is nation-ending stuff we’re dealing with here and folks better wake up soon. I’ll do my part. Think about what yours is.”

We don’t have much time left.

American bro goes on rant shocker.

One, what’s that “(alleged)” doing there? You don’t need an “alleged” in a hypothetical! There is no alleged rapist who is going to sue you for calling him a rapist, because this is a hypothetical, so the words are general, not particular.

Two, wtf is a trans rapist? Someone who identifies as a rapist without actually raping? The issue is actual convicted rapists, not men who say they’re rapists when they’re not.

Three, the issue isn’t “trans persons,” it’s men in women’s prisons. Men. Not persons, men. Your clumsy attempt to cover that up betrays the fact that you know that and are working to hide it. It’s not cute for a man to try to obfuscate the fact that it’s men who rape women, not “persons” who rape women.

Four, the policy, obviously, does one hell of a lot more than “proper recordkeeping.” It puts rapists in women’s prisons. Also it’s not “proper recordkeeping” at all to record rapist men as women.

Five, the issue isn’t “claiming to be trans,” it’s men claiming to be women. Why are you so eager to hide that fact by lying about it?

Six, “no issue here” – that’s easy for you to say, you woman-hating pig.

Oh that’s okay, rape statistics don’t matter.

Police have been criticised for saying they will record rapes by offenders with male genitalia as being committed by a woman if the attacker “identifies as a female”.

Gee why would anyone criticize them for that?

The move, reported by The Scottish Sun on Sunday, comes ahead of proposed new laws to make it easier for people to self-identify as whichever sex they want, which are opposed by some feminist groups.

Feminists are funny that way. We think that only women are women, and that men (as it says on the label) are men.

MacAskill, who is the Alba party MP for East Lothian, having defected from the SNP, said: “As a lawyer for 20 years and justice secretary for almost eight, I’ve seen some legal absurdities. But this tops it all and is dangerous. It’s physically impossible and is about dogma overriding common sense. Women prisoners are being harmed by this and vital crime statistics rendered useless.”

…

Detective Superintendent Fil Capaldi said: “The sex/gender identification of individuals who come into contact with the police will be based on how they present or how they self-declare, which is consistent with the values of the organisation. Police Scotland requires no evidence or certification as proof of biological sex or gender identity other than a person’s self-declaration, unless it is pertinent to any investigation with which they are linked.”

But it is pertinent when it’s rape you absolute numpty.

Letting us all know she’s not backing down and not going away.

Guardian columnist John Harris muses on the contempt for other people displayed by Boris Johnson:

There are two elements to all this: one is Johnson’s Trumpish disdain for some of the most basic components of our democracy – the rule of law, scrutiny of the executive, an independent BBC (which he is now lashing out at yet again). The other is bound up with the prime minister’s apparently dim and disrespectful view of his fellow human beings – which, as revelations about Downing Street parties pile up, is now at the heart of our politics.

Both of those are Trumpish though. They’re very alike, but also very different – Trump entirely lacks that Etonian posh boy vibe that Johnson gets to use to his advantage. Johnson is vulgar in the way Etonian posh boys are and Trump is vulgar in the way crass boys from Queens are – the two are radically different.

Remember what a teacher at Eton wrote to his father in 1982: “Boris sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility … I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else.” A justified retort, of course, would be that this is the exact mindset that Eton is designed to produce – but even in that context, Johnson seemed to be in a league of his own.

Trump did not go to Eton, or Andover.

I recently read Sad Little Men, the writer Richard Beard’s eloquent book about private schools and the kind of leaders they produce, which shines light on Cameron and Johnson via his own story of an elite education. In his experience, contempt for the lower orders began with the idea that “everyone else was less special and often stupid”, and blurred into indifference: “We saw from car windows the petrol stations and primary schools and Bovis homes in which less privileged lives played themselves out, but the hopes and dreams of these people didn’t meaningfully exist for us, nor their disappointments and pain.”

Lords of the manor.

What I keep saying. People pretend to be concerned about global warming but they go right on taking cruises and trips involving air travel and buying SUVs and gigantic yachts.

… the superyacht industry is booming – and the number of vessels under construction or on order worldwide has hit a new record. According to figures revealed in the latest edition of Boat International’s Global Order Book, more than 1,200 superyachts are slated to be built – a rise of 25% on last year.

That’s ok. The people who are struggling to stay alive 50 years from now will have every sympathy with contemporary people who just need a little recreation.

“The market’s never been busier,” said Will Christie, a superyacht broker.

…

“Everybody just wants freedom, and ultra-high-net-worth individuals can afford it,” he added. “The ability to escape anywhere is very attractive in the current climate. They think: I don’t need to be stuck in the office, and if you’re worth billions, why should you be?”

Why indeed? They’ll be dead before the planet fries completely, so why should they give up anything?

Critics of the boom in superyachts point to the vastly disproportionate environmental damage produced by the super-rich. “Whether it’s this or private jets or trips to space, they’re just sticking two fingers up at the rest of society,” said Peter Newell, a professor of international relations at Sussex University. “It’s decadent. They’re not comfortable with the constraints that come with accepting collective responsibility for the fate of the planet.”

Being rich does that to people. They think it makes them superior, and thus entitled to say “fuck the rest of society.”

The economic anthropologist Richard Wilk, a distinguished professor at Indiana University in the US, said: “Of course, if you add every superyacht together, it’s just a blip on total greenhouse gas production. But it is symbolic – and the global impact of the 2,000-odd billionaires on the planet are very significant. So it’s part of a pattern of overconsumption by the upper crust.”

In research with his colleague Beatriz Barros, he found that the average billionaire had a carbon footprint thousands of times that of the average person. The global average footprint of CO₂ emitted per person is just under five tonnes, while they estimated that Roman Abramovich – the top polluter according to their list – was responsible for about 33,859 tonnes of carbon emitted in 2018. More than two-thirds of that was the product of his yacht, the 162.5-metre Eclipse.

Well he’s six or seven many many many times more important and special than we 5-tonners are.