The Green Party and Nuclear Energy

https://christobusby.substack.com/p/the-green-party-and-nuclear-energy

see also 2026 George Monbiot Nuclear Greenwash Award goes to the Green Party for Abandoning Nuclear Opposition

and Thousands Say “No” to Drax’s AI Data Centre Bid: “Burning Forests to Power AI is Not Green

Oct 09, 2026 by Dr Christopher Busby

The recent Brighton conference policy change of the Green Party of England and Wales to embrace nuclear energy was sad but not unexpected. I have believed since Fukushima that the nuclear operators (which we used to call the nuclear military complex, or their agents, the nuclearists) had started seriously focusing on the last political fortress of those opposing nuclear. In the hysteria following Fukushima, they were forced to bring out their Queen, George Monbiot and his Guardian megaphone. This began with his Pauline conversion (no one has died from the radioactive releases) and moving to his attacks on me, on Christopher Busby (false scientist, fraud). I have written and spoken elsewhere that all that he said about me (peddling anti-radiation pills and making stupid epidemiological mistakes) was a pack of lies and half-truths, supported by bogus scientists like Gerry Thomas so I won’t say any more here about that. Except that the Green Party immediately disowned me, and all the funding I was receiving (Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Goldsmiths, the Gillettes) vanished.

But at the time, I was the Green Party National Speaker on Science and Technology, and immediately following Fukushima, I explained the problem on prime-time TV News for the BBC and also ITN. You can see these interviews on Youtube still. Everything I said then (opposed by some pro-nuclear furby) has since been shown to be true. Cancer and leukemia rates have increased in Japan, and also generally every country that provides cancer data.

But the Green Party began as an anti-nuclear party in Germany, with Petra Kelly. When I chained myself to the gates of Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station in Wales in 1992, Petra Kelly had agreed to come and support our campaign against opening the nuclear site, which was dangerous. The station operators had applied to run the reactors at a high temperature to anneal the cracks in the pressure vessel. This was not long after the experiment at Chernobyl. And the contamination of Wales by Chernobyl (which led to sharp increases in cancer and child leukemia).

AI (Bless her cotton socks) has this to say:

In 1992, the specific direct action involving anti-radiation scientist and activist Dr. Christopher Busby at the Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station was a coordinated blockade that chained shut the facility’s main gates

Having joined the Green Party that same year, Busby organized and led the action:

The Tactic: Activists targeted the main entrance of the power station, using heavy-duty D-locks and chains to secure themselves directly to the gate mechanisms, effectively blocking vehicle access to the site

Media Strategy: Busby deliberately tipped off major news outlets beforehand. The imagery of the locked gates and the high-stakes protest made national headlines on both BBC and ITV news broadcasts

The Aftermath: The protest successfully amplified the public safety debate surrounding the station’s embrittled reactor pressure vessels. It is frequently cited by Busby and Green Party organizers as a pivotal moment of non-violent pressure that ultimately pushed the operator to announce the plant’s permanent economic closure the following year.

We were all a bit scared by this project. The nuclear police had pistols and we were told they would shoot us. Petra Kelly was assassinated a few months after this. How can I say this? How do I know? Well, of course I don’t know and cannot be sure. But here is something you don’t know about this. The story now widely accepted (look at Wikipedia) is that her man, General Gert Bastiaan killed her.

The police determined that Kelly was shot dead while sleeping by Bastian, who then died of suicide.

Well and Good. But I spoke with Prof Ernest Sternglass about this. He knew both of them, and said it was impossible that Bastiaan would have killed her and himself. They were full of positive energy and life, when he met them in Berlin some 6 weeks before she died. She was very excited. She had received an offer of considerable financial support by German TV to make a series of documentaries with Russian and Belarussian scientists including Dr. Shevchenko, to report on the real health effects of the Chernobyl accident contamination. At the time, the nuclear operators and their tame scientists in the IAEA and the WHO were stating that there were no measurable health effects. It was the same at Fukushima some twenty years later. But back in those days they killed you, rather than using media to destroy your credibility. Erin Brockovitch for example. Ernest told me he later had a phone call from Shevchenko from Mexico who told him he was on the run and feared for his life.

Another example, which I investigated more closely was the Patricia Sheehan death in Ireland. I have done a lot of research on Ireland about radiation from Sellafield and wrote the result up in my book Wolves of Water (2006). That was funded by the Rowntrees. But in 1997 I was supported by the Irish State to carry out the research on cancer in North Wales (which Monbiot attacked) and also Ireland, where I was sent all the data from the Irish Cancer Registry to see if a similar sea coast effect existed in eastern areas contaminated by the Sellafield releases. It did.

Dr Patricia Sheehan, of Dundalk (County Louth) reported in 1983 in the British Medical Journal that there was a cluster of 6 Downs Syndrome babies born to women who attended St Louis Girls School in Dundalk at the time of the Windscale (now Sellafield) reactor fire in 1957. Later she found two more, totalling 8, a cohort of 8 mothers. This is a statistically impossible event (background rate is 1 in 1000 live births, there were 28 women in the class). and so there must be a cause. Radiation of mothers causes Downs Syndrome in the babies. But huge efforts were made to dismiss her findings and sideline her efforts. I personally met with and spoke to many of the people involved in this. Including the dodgy characters.

AI again:

Her dedication brought the case into international scientific view, though her specific theories were eventually scientifically dismissed after her death

She published further studies in 1994, continuing to argue that Sellafield’s environmental discharges were linked to Irish birth defects. Her work frequently fueled intense political debates in Ireland’s parliament (Dáil Éireann) regarding the safety of the Irish Sea

Tragically, Dr. Patricia Sheehan died in a car accident on July 7, 1994, before the definitive epidemiological review of her cluster was fully realized.

I have driven on the road she died on many times. Her car ran off the road and crashed. No witnesses. That road from Dundalk is a good wide road. An easy road. There is no way on that road that she could have run off it. She was pushed off it in some way.

For example, Rosalie Bertell told me a story once. She was returning home from a conference in New York, to Canada where she lived at the time. A big truck with rolls of barbed wire overtook her on a straight stretch of road miles from anywhere. It went in front of her and two rolls of barbed wire dropped off the back and landed in her path. She braked and swerved and by some miracle didn’t go off the road and down the hill into the forest. She sat there for a minute or two and a big Police car with two officers came up and asked her what happened. She told them; they went in pursuit of the truck. She sat there for a long time. Eventually, maybe some hours, another police car came up. She told them what happened: they said there was no other police car on that stretch.

Others have died in car accidents. I myself, when driving my 650 motorbike from Sweden to Denmark was followed closely by a big SUV. It had followed me across the country from Stockholm to Goteborg, appearing and disappearing, picking me up again after a night’s stop in Jonkoping. On the Denmark motorway south, I began to realise that I was being followed. I was not sure about the intention; they speeded up when I did and slowed down when I did. I tucked in front of another car and stayed between two cars driving at about 70 to 80mph so they couldn’t get close. It was scary. But they followed me for an hour or so across Denmark until I peeled off for Alkmaar.

Back to Petra Kelly. I spoke with Scottish Dave in Clonakilty. He said that he was at a party in Dublin where Green Party leader Sarah Parkin was peddling her book about Petra Kelly. She wrote this book to put the story about that Bastiaan had shot Kelly. She made a special point to Scottish Dave (without knowing that he was a friend) that my ideas on nuclear power and health were mad. Parkin was married to Dr D M (Max) Parkin who ran the central (IARC) operation in Lyon which was set up to provide dishonest epidemiological papers showing that the Chernobyl accident had no measurable health effects. Parkin wrote an influential paper about child leukaemia after Chernobyl which is as full of holes as a colander. How could it be that Sarah Parkin, effectively head of the Green Party and Max Parkin (whose job became the gatekeeper of bad news about Chernobyl effects) were an item? Please! Parkin (and Porritt) always headed off any Green Party official interest in the health effects.

The infiltration of the Green Party over the time I was active, with Molly Scott Cato (and before, Trawsfynydd, Dungeness, non-violent Direct Action) was significant. But you could usually spot the individuals. Some of them are still there, pulling strings, altering minutes, changing agendas, dismissing dangerous individuals for the projects they are paid to tune or disrupt. Its like this everywhere. But this essay is about the Green Party.

On Feb 5th 1998 the STOA unit of the EU asked a number of scientists to discuss the draft Radiation Basic Safety Standards (BSS) Directive, which adopted the Radiation Risk Model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Those invited (by the Greens) were Alice Stewart, Rosalie Bertell, Akexey Yablokov, Jean Francois Viel (who studied child leukemia at the La Hague reprocessing plant in France) and Christopher Busby (in the red corner) with the Scientific Secretary of the ICRP, Jack Valentin in the blue corner.

Between us, we pretty much destroyed the ICRP position, citing evidence: many studies that showed cancer and leukaemia increases at internal doses that were very low. At nuclear sites and after Chernobyl. We advised the Parliament to press for a clause in the BSS which demanded a re-assessment of the Justification of using the ICRP model to provide a basis for legal limits. And the Commission did provide such a clause: it is still there. It states that if new and important evidence becomes available that shows the ICRP model is wrong, then the whole thing has to be re-thought. Justification is about how many people can die annually in order to have the advantages of nuclear energy.

 

One of the original clauses of the BSS allowed the dilution of radioactivity from nuclear sites into consumer goods. Yes. You read that correctly. Richard Bramhall and I started a campaign in the Green Party to have this clause removed. The TV (in those pre-Iraq days actually covered news) gave us space, including a very powerful BBC2 documentary. The EU modified the clause. All the local Green parties went out on the streets to collect signatures. We got to meet Michael Meacher, the Environment Minister, and later we persuaded him to set up the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters, CERRIE. This met from 2000 to 2004 by which time it became clear that our arguments presented at the 1998 EU STOA meeting were supported, and that internal exposures were dangerous because of the ways on which the internal radioactive elements bound to DNA. What I later called radiochemical genotoxicity. The joint CERRIE study would have found, for example, that our work on the breast cancer rates near the Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex was correct: the rates were significantly high. So, CERRIE had to go: Meacher was sacked by Blair and it was swiftly shut down. Any dissenting report was banned. However, we had taken the opportunity to Sony DAT audio record every meeting and a transcript is being prepared. CERRIE was the point at which the science began to focus on internal radiation. It changed the direction of investigation.

At the 1998 conference, the destruction of the ICRP position was followed by a statement by their Scientific Secretary Jack Valentin. He said: ICRP is an independent charity and the EU can take advice from anyone it likes. The group thought about this and decided the time had come to provide independent advice based on published scientific and epidemiological evidence. We set up the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). We were given money by the Green Party and some Charitable organisations to provide a new radiation risk model which was based on contemporary and historic evidence. Much if this evidence resulted from the Chernobyl health effects, which were increasingly being reported everywhere. By 2003, the new risk model was ready and was presented in Brussels. The book was translated into Russian, Japanese, Spanish, and French. The ECRR followed it with an International Conference in Lesvos, Greece, funded by USA lawyer Stuart Smith, to further discuss the evidence and refine the model. Scientists came from USA, Europe, UK, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. In 2010 a new ECRR Report was published. ECRR reports were published on Chernobyl effects, on Uranium and Uranium weapons, on mechanistic aspects of radiation biology, on photoelectron effects, and on many topics. ECRR scientists were invited to make presentations in most of the countries of Europe, in Japan after Fukushima, in the USA.

The sudden reversal of the position of the Green Party began with George Monbiot and Mark Lynas. Neither were experts or even scientists. Slowly the Greens were poisoned by the insidious message of those paid to divert their attention from the health effects. The anti-nuclear position was increasingly to argue that nuclear energy was too expensive, that it was uncompetitive, that it was the low-carbon answer to climate change, which was pitched as being due to Carbon Dioxide build up. The evidence that it was killing millions was side-lined and rubbished (ECRR2003 calculated 65 million cancers). Monbiot himself had phoned me (I was in France at the time, I remember it well) before he published his seminal pro-nuclear essay in the Guardian. He asked about how radioactive emissions were causing cancer. Presumable to ask his controls how to deal with the counter arguments.

So, the aim of this essay is to point out that the Green Parties were more or less founded on the basis of anti-nuclear. If you have read Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, which pretty much started the environmental movement, you will remember that her main target was radioactive contamination: killing babies, causing cancer, twisting the genetic integrity of all life on Earth. Warnings historically given by a range of major scientific figures, Nobel prize winners Herman Muller, Linus Pauling, Andrey Sakharov, researchers like Alice Stewart, Rosalie Bertell, Ernest Sternglass, Karl Morgan, John Gofman, the list is long.

The Green Party had to be silenced, and they were, and now the process is complete. It was done with money and infiltration. I can name the players who did this. It included attacking the scientists personally: you don’t have to attack the science, the evidence, you ignore it. You attack the scientist. You do this in the newspapers and on the Internet. In the 2016 Test Veteran Court Case in the Royal Courts of Justice, I was not allowed to give evidence, on the basis that I was biased (i.e. my evidence opposed the ICRP model). The eminent ECRR experts we bought from Germany, Japan, and Ireland at great expense were ignored by the judge (Nick Blake) on the basis that they were members of the ECRR. Though by 2019, the Scottish High Court ruled that excluding my evidence had been Unlawful.

The other method, which the nuclearists have used since the 1990s, when I first walked into this intellectual swamp, is to set up and fund bogus anti-nuclear scientists and bogus anti-nuclear groups. The method, Bokononism, was described by Kurt Vonnegut (Cats Cradle) long ago: I can list the individuals and anti-nuclear groups and perhaps I will, but not here. This is about the Green Party.

But, as Joseph Conrad once wrote: after all the shouting is over, the grim silence of facts remains.

Those who supported the pro-nuclear motion at the Brighton conference (I read ) were mainly young people, young Greens. The Green Party in my day (1992-2011) were mostly not scientists (which is mainly why I became the Science and Technology Speaker); nowadays I look to see who is the expert on these issues and find it is the lady plumber who recently made parliament. She looks like a nice soul. And indeed, the leader Zac, looks like a nice guy. But none of them know anything about radiation (or I would guess science and technology, or epidemiology; these are arcane areas). There are no experts. And if I were to contact them to inform them that the risk model of the ICRP has killed 500,000,000 people since 1952, more than all the wars in History, they would look online, or ask AI, and be told I am a nutcase. After all, AI is just the assembly of all that’s on the Internet, providing a centre of gravity of belief. But not truth. And if you argue with AI, you can prove it wrong, then it always backs off and apologises.

The cancer epidemic began in 1980, some 20 years after the nuclear atmospheric testing 1959-63. I published a letter in the British Medical Journal about this in 1994. And wrote Wings of Death in 1995, predicting that the children born in 1959-1963 would have significant cancer excess when they grew up (they are now 60-65). They have. Those who were born in that period suffered an excess infant mortality. Those that survived have an excess cancer risk of more than 50%. We know this from studying and comparing areas of high fallout (high rainfall) with low fallout (low rainfall) by cohort year of birth in USA States, California and New Mexico (dry) versus Kentucky and Alabama (wet). This has been published in the scientific literature by two different research groups. It means that 1 in 3 cancers was caused by radiation, essentially by the nuclear scientists who have lied and twisted the truth for more than 75 years.

Those who live near nuclear sites have an excess risk of cancer, as do airline stewards, CT patients, those living near radioactive contamination, or exposed to Uranium weapons (DU, EU) residues. But the Green Party members don’t look. Their gaze is diverted to Global Warming by people like Monbiot. Who has now decided (in a new book) that we should stop livestock farming and live on bacteria and insect pancakes.

They took the trees, our fruit trees, and then sold us back the fruit. They took the water next, the rivers, the rain, the springs that fed civilisations for thousands of years.

They took the water, bottled it, and sold it back to us. They took the land, land that existed long before any human being drew lines around it and told you that if you wanted to stand on it, you better have a payment plan.

Am I the only one this drives crazy?

Everything you need to survive, water, food, shelter, was already here. Nobody created it. But somehow you were born owing them for it.

And why does a free life sound like such a crazy idea?

Why does simply existing without debt, without bills, without permission? Why does that sound like a fantasy?

Who the hell convinced us that this is how it’s supposed to be?

Land Rights in The Bible

 

All land on Earth is God’s personal property and mankind can only ever be stewards, or tenants of it

‘God speaks to Moses: “The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; and you are but my tenants”‘. Leviticus 25:23

‘Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it.’ Deuteronomy 10:14

‘The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it ‘ Psalm 24:1

Theft of land or inheritance is a cardinal sin

‘You shall not covet your neighbour’s house…’  Tenth Commandment, Exodus 20:17

 

Heirs have the right to receive their estates intact:

‘And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgement, as the Lord commanded Moses.’  Numbers 27:1-11

 

Greed for property draws the heart away from God

‘Woe to those who join house to house and field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land. Yahweh of heaven’s armies has sworn in my hearing: “Surely many houses shall be desolate, large and beautiful houses, without inhabitant.’ Isaiah 5:8-9

 

God judges us by how we treat the poor, lowly and humble

‘But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain other brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, “These that have turned the world upside down have come here also”’.  Acts 17:5-6

‘Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.’ Matthew 23:12

 

Jesus’ disciples and apostles held all things in common

‘Then they that gladly received his word were baptised: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God and having favour with all the people. And YAHWEH added to the church daily, such as should be saved.’ Acts 2:41-47

 

Jesus directly demonstrates the right to roam

‘And it came to pass on the second Sabbath after the first, that He went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.’ Luke 6:1

 

The Jubilee provides for all debts and tenancies to be temporary and reset every couple of generations

‘And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.’  Leviticus 25:10

 

The Sabbath year reminds all landholders that the land is God’s property and it is their duty to manage it so the poor landless are provided for

‘And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.’ Exodus 23:10-11

 

Producers must take responsibility for what they sell, and pay for any adverse consequences

‘If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.’  Exodus 21:29

 

Respect property boundaries

‘You shall not move your neighbour’s boundary mark, which the ancestors have set.’ Deuteronomy 19:14

‘Do not move the ancient boundary or go into the fields of the fatherless.’ Proverbs 23:10

 

Government is only one of five co-equal institutions: Marriage promulgates; The family cultivates; Commerce invigorates; and The church translates.  When government goes unchecked by other powers, laid down by God, it is used to take property from the people, confiscating more and more for the privileged eating into the rights of the other four to thrive and, ultimately, survive. Beware of theft by runaway government in a fallen world

‘So Samuel spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked of him a king. He said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his ploughing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.’   1 Samuel 8:10–18

 

The faithful shall inherit the earth through Christ

‘The meek shall inherit the earth..’ Matthew 5:5

‘God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.’ Hebrews 1:2

‘And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.’ Romans 8:17

 

True wealth is accumulated by ones own and ones family’s labour

Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase.’ Proverbs 13:11

 

You are not allowed to charge interest on loans to fellow believers

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.’  Deuteronomy 23:19-20

 

The Jerusalem Temple is not Biblical

Go and tell David my servant, Thus saith YAHWEH, “Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in: For I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up Israel unto this day; but have gone from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle to another”.  1 Chronicles 17:4-5

‘And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.’ Revelation 21:2 & 22

 

Israel is commanded not to discriminate, but to care for intermingled ethnic groups as themselves

‘But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.’ Leviticus 19:34

Prince William on third anniversary of ‘Homewards’, his Royal/Corporate charity for homeless people.

https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/prince-william-homelessness-homewards-year-three/

Prince William: ‘If systems help create homelessness, systems can help prevent it’….?

The future king is aiming to demonstrate that preventing homelessness is the key to tackling the issue as his Homewards initiative turns three. 30 Jun 2026Perhaps William can let the homeless use one of his seven palaces, 10 castles, 12 homes or 56 holiday cottages as part of the royal family’s £20 billion property portfolio?

£3.5m to help 70 people find a home cost £50,000 per person!

By 2027, Prince Billy’s multi-million pound charity is set to house only about 40% of the 250 people they had planned to.

The five-year project is aiming to demonstrate that it is possible to end homelessness across the UK.

In its first three years, Homewards has supported 70 individuals and families into stable homes, and over 250 people were supported into employment. There are over 100 local initiatives involved in the programme, with a £500,000 fund to develop and deliver hyper-specific local action.

Homewards is aiming to fund longer term efforts to prevent homelessness with £1.9 million invested across six locations through the Homewards Fund and £3.5 million through grants and private philanthropy.

The number of households living in temporary accommodation is at its highest since records began, with 134,210 households living in temporary housing in England as of the end of 2025.

Many people who are in temporary accommodation and social housing face moving into the space with zero to little furniture. Homewards is setting out to tackle the issue with a £2.3 million partnership bringing repurposed furniture to those in social housing.

Prince William’s initiative has brought together The Multibank, B&Q, Bosch Home Appliances, DFS Group, Howdens and IKEA to furnish 42 homes so far, with a target of 250 by the end of the programme.

 

Toxic waste on Duchy Estate land in Wigan.  King’s private estate tried to sell land with UK’s ‘worst illegal waste dump’ to council

https://archive.is/m3xZb#selection-1235.0-1587.96

KING Charles’s private estate tried to sell land that was contaminated with a large rotting illegal waste dump to a local authority, it has emerged. In January, a 25,000-ton site described as the UK’s “worst illegal waste dump” in Bickershaw, Wigan, was revealed to be largely on land owned by the Duchy of Lancaster, the King’s extensive private portfolio of properties and estates. Previously, the Duchy said it had offered to transfer the land to Wigan Council in July last year.

However, a Freedom of Information Request by Channel 4 News found that the Duchy tried to sell the site to the local authority at full market price. The Duchy previously claimed that it is, in effect, exempt from regulations and duties to clean the site on account of an ancient feudal legal framework dating back some 750 years.

Then in February, following revelations that the toxic illegal landfill was largely on the Duchy’s land, the estate followed up the offer to the council, offering to transfer the land for free. “We have discussed the matter with the Duchy Solicitor, who has confirmed the Duchy will transfer the property to the Council for nil value and with each party bearing their own costs in the hope that that will assist the Council in dealing with the property in conjunction with its own adjoining land,” the Duchy wrote.

In the revealed correspondence, emails from the Duchy’s solicitors, Farrer & Co, show, in addition to the transfer offer, that the Duchy attempted to sell the contaminated land at market value to the council. In July, the Duchy reportedly wrote: “… it may be possible to sell the land to you. Any sale would have to be at open market value and the Duchy of Lancaster’s valuers, and our costs would have to be paid as well.” Wigan Council told Channel 4 News on Monday that it “respectfully declined” the Duchy’s offer.

A Duchy of Lancaster spokesperson told Channel 4 News: “We continue to work with Wigan Council to try and find an effective resolution to the illegal waste site.” Last month, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham said that the Duchy’s plan to hand contaminated land to the local council is “not an acceptable response”. The UK Government has since announced it will fund the clean-up of the Wigan site, although it has yet to begin…

Community Rejoices as Claim for Adverse Possession Successfully Upheld

Challenging Councils & Public Bodies
Leading Housing Solicitors

HJA In The News April 14, 2026

Gregory Horne, Solicitor in the Housing Law team at Hodge Jones & Allen, successfully assisted the defendant in the case of Elitestone v Revill, helping Mr. Revill to demonstrate factual possession of the land in dispute; whereby the original claim for possession was dismissed with the counterclaim for adverse possession allowed with declarations and costs.

Hodge Jones & Allen took on Mr Revill’s case after his previous legal representative was unable to secure him a legal aid certificate. Gregory then had to work with counsel, Timothy Baldwin, Barrister at Garden Court Chambers, to formulate a defence in less than 14 days’ time as a result of the switch in legal teams.

On taking instructions, Mr Revill explained that he was in occupation of a plot of land referred to as Unit 16 Holts Field in opposition to Elitestone Ltd, a real estate company who intended to develop the land.

Wales online: Inside Holtsfield, the thriving but hidden community that has emerged on a holiday site which became a wartime refuge

Holts Field is a small patch of land housing some twenty families who have lived there since the 1930s and some of whom had held a licence to occupy prior to Elitestone’s acquisition. Mr Revill explained that he had been in occupation of the land for 35 years, since 1991, and that he had been active in campaigns to defend the people who lived there, including himself, from eviction for the entire period of his occupation.

He directed Hodge Jones & Allen to a national campaign by the people of Holts Field which had resulted in a case which escalated to the House of Lords in 1997 from which a number of the occupiers of the field had won secure Rent Act tenancies. Mr Revill explained that his occupation began when he paid the person previously in occupation £6,000 for the right to the chalet. It later transpired that this was the wrong person to pay as they had never had permission form the licence holder to live in the chalet themselves.

Swansea council: Conservation area – Holt’s Field

Mr Revill was unfortunately the victim of a fire in March 2024 which destroyed his chalet on Holts Field, destroyed all the documentation which might have lent credibility to his claims, and caused Mr Revill such severe injury that he was medically declared dead and had no heartbeat for 15 minutes. He was eventually resuscitated and it was at that point that possession proceedings began.

Gregory assisted in preparing a defence which argued firstly that he was a licensee, having bought a licence when he took up occupation, and in the alternative that he was in adverse possession and had been since 1991 meaning that he was entitled to a declaration that the property was held on trust for him beneficially.

At a three day trial last week, Gregory and Timothy Baldwin were both able to successfully persuade the judge that despite the deficiencies in documentary evidence, there was sufficient credible evidence, primarily in the form of the live testimony evidence of those who were also involved in the struggle for the field in 1991, that Mr Revill had begun his occupation in the summer of 1991 and was therefore entitled to the declaration sought.

The Land Is Ours 1997 Action: 1997: action in the Gower, Holtsfield homepage

At that trial, HHJ Beard gave an oral judgement making findings of fact on the evidence that the Defendant had been in uninterrupted possession of Unit 16 from August 1991 and that breaks in possession in 2019 and as a result of the fire did not amount to abandonment and he had sought secure and improve the land. Therefore, the elements of demonstrating adverse possession were made out as he has factual possession of the land, had the necessary intention to possession the land and this was without the Claimants consent. Further as the possession had been at least 12 years prior to the 13 October 2003 before the Land Registration Act 2003 came into force he was entitled to the declaration and registration as proprietor. Thus, the claim for possession was dismissed and the counterclaim for adverse possession allowed with declarations and costs.

The case demonstrated the strength of the community and showed solidarity in action amongst those who have lived and fought for their right to remain for all those years.

As a result of this ruling, Mr Revill has already begun construction work on a new chalet on the site and intends to take up occupation and rejoin the community there at the earliest opportunity. Gregory and Mr Baldwin also achieved an order for costs subject to detailed assessment as per legal aid guidance.

Commenting on the successful result, Gregory stated: “I was very pleased to be able to help Mr Revill. It is inspiring to see a community come together to make right such a long running dispute and I am hopeful that this judgement will bring to a close the 35 plus years of conflict between Elitestone and the residents of Holts Field.”

 

Read more elsewhere here on The Land Is Ours website: Holtsfield – The Story so Far

Royal Mint, National Debt: The Shocking Truth About The Royal Finances
by Norman Baker, Biteback, £22
Ref: https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/royal-mint-national-debt

In his irreverent and uncompromising bestseller … And What Do You Do?, former Minister of State and Privy Counsellor Norman Baker laid bare what the British royal family didn’t want us to know, namely its extravagant use of public money and general bad behaviour.

This sensational sequel goes even deeper in its analysis of royal finances, examining where the money comes from, how it is used and what has changed with the arrival of a new king.

Amongst many other things, it reveals how a family that was effectively bankrupt in 1760 is now one of the richest in the country; how they lobby governments and the media to maximise their profits from the public purse; and how they take advantage of a uniquely beneficial tax and legislative regime.

Packed with details on the acceptance of dodgy donations; the appropriation of official gifts for personal use; and the exploitation of public bodies including the NHS, churches and charities, who are charged punitive rates for the use of Duchy-controlled land, this eye-opening exposé also includes a chapter on Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and his money-making endeavours, including his friendships with convicted fraudsters, paedophiles and spies.

Pulling no punches, this is the book the royal family really don’t want you to read.
*****************************************
 

YouTube interview with Norman Baker about his new book here: King Charles and Prince William’s Secret Billions: Norman Baker on Royal Finances
****************************************
 

Morning Star Book Review
Exposure of the Royal rip-off
23 December 2025
JAMIE BRITTON reaches for the sick bucket as he is forced to engorge detail after detail of the Royal Family’s wealth

Ref: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/exposure-royal-rip

Royal Mint, National Debt: The Shocking Truth About The Royal Finances
Norman Baker, Biteback, £22

IF ever a book should come with a public health warning this is it! Either that or the reader should prepare to have a sick bucket nearby and a large quantity of Rennies to be consumed after they have finished it.

Baker follows up to his forensic study of the royal finances, And What Do You Do?, by going even deeper into where the money comes from, how it is used, and how the royals lobby governments and the media for maximum profit. It is all here in sordid detail. How the NHS and charities pay them to use Duchy-controlled land, and how they increase their profits by mixing with crooks and other dubious individuals.

Yes, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and Sarah Ferguson are here. By the time you have finished Chapter 8, Andrew’s Unsavoury Circle, you might find a Rennie will come in handy to quell the rising heartburn and flux you will undoubtably feel.

What I found most interesting in this book was the chapter on the Sovereign Wealth Fund. It shows clearly how monarchs go about reducing parliamentary and public scrutiny of their financial dealings. In 2025 the royal settlement for the year ahead was a 53 per cent increase in funding for the royals. This bitter pill was sugared by the decision to axe the royal train. “King cuts back on bills” screamed the headlines! In fact, as Baker points out this was not a saving at all as the royals were to benefit from two new “carbon-busting” helicopters that vary in price between £150,000 and £500,000. As Baker states: “Expect the royals to plump for something at the top end as they are not paying.”

In Chapter 9, Upstairs, Downstairs, Baker lists the ludicrous lifestyle hidden from the public. The fact that Queen Elizabeth II needed ten servants to serve her afternoon tea; the sandwiches having to be cut in certain ways so that they had no corners on them; that King Charles must have several eggs boiled for his breakfast so that he can have the perfect one to suit his preference at the time; the unspeakable Andrew calling a maid up four flights of stairs to open his curtains. Curtains he was sitting right next to.

But wait! I hear you ask. Isn’t William going to slim down the monarchy? All this is made clear in Chapter 3, Mercenary Duchies, and Chapter 12, A New Beginning, where Baker shows that things have got worse “in terms of the vast sums of public money now being directed to this, one of the richest families in the country.”

So the next time the media deems fit to present a future king, with family, in a field of daffodils, or the king raising a glass of stout towards us: remember, they are not smiling. They are laughing at us. Laughing all the way to the bank.

Pippa Middleton ready for a rumble with The Ramblers’ Association after shutting footpath at her £15million mansion

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15706723/Pippa-Middleton-Ramblers-Association-shutting-footpath-15million-mansion.html

When Pippa Middleton and James Matthews paid £15 million for a 32-room red-brick Georgian mansion set in 145 acres of Berkshire countryside, they surely thought they had found the perfect sanctuary to raise their young family in privacy.

But the Princess of Wales’s younger sister and her hedge-fund tycoon husband now find themselves in a battle with furious locals, after they barred dog walkers and ramblers from going through their grounds.

The couple will now have to persuade a government-appointed planning inspector next month that they are within their rights to withdraw long-standing access to the track.

Grade I-listed Barton Court, which sits on the River Kennet near the village of Kintbury, was previously owned by the late retail tycoon Sir Terence Conran, who allowed locals to use Mill Lane, which winds through the estate.

But when the couple arrived in 2022 with their three children – Arthur, seven, Grace, five, and Rose, three – they wasted little time in closing off the lane with an electric gate.

Signs warning ‘Private: No Public Access’ and ‘No Trespassing’ appeared around the perimeter.

Thirty-five residents, backed by The Ramblers Association, applied to West Berkshire Council to have Mill Lane declared a public right of way.

The council sided with the villagers, but Mr Matthews, through his land agent, then objected.

Do YOU think that access to this footpath should be made public?

No, it’s on private property
Yes, people have used this lane for a long time

Next month a planning inspector will hear representations from both sides before making a legally binding ruling.

Eugene Futcher, chairman of West Berkshire Ramblers, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘The public have had  for a very long time – certainly before the 1960s.’

‘Taking it away will be inconvenient, especially when walking is so important. It will force people on to the main road, which is very dangerous.

‘There is no footpath or verge.

‘The paths were never closed under Conran – he actively encouraged people to use them.’

Rob Brown, 68, a Kintbury resident since 1985, said: 1 don’t think they give a damn about what anyone in the village thinks.

‘They’re not very popular in the area. They think they’re better than everyone else. They re not even the proper Royal Family

‘Closing the path is a nuisance. Conran was better for the area.’

Peter Clegg, 68, said: I don’t know who they think they are. They think they can decide who can walk where and when.

‘It’s not on. It’s not like people are trampling on arable fields. People have been walking there for a long time. It shows a lack of respect.’

A resident of 20 years added: ‘I understand their need for privacy, but you can’t move into a village and demand that people change their ways.’

The footpath dispute is not the only source of friction since the couple arrived in Kintbury.

Plans to renovate the mansion stalled after archaeologists warned that work could disturb prehistoric remains on the site.

And last year a party to mark Mr Matthews’ 50th birthday drew complaints over late-night music.

On Thursday April 1st, protesters in London occupied the exclusive Mayfair antiquarian bookshop belonging to the absentee landlord at the centre of the rent dispute hitting hill farmers in the Knockmealdowns in Waterford, Eire. A proposed 900% increase in rent by Peregrine Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire
will drive these traditional farmers off the land their families have tended to for centuries.

   

Sheep farmers 900% rent increase issue raised in Dáil
The Munster Express, 28th Mar 2026

Ref: https://www.munster-express.ie/sheep-farmers-900-rent-increase-issue-raised-in-dil/

The issue of a proposed 900% rent increase for sheep farmers leasing land in the Knockmealdown Mountains was raised in the Dáil last week.
A group of farmers, who lease the almost 8,000 acres of land on the mountains from Lismore Estate, which manages Lismore Castle on behalf of the Duke of Devonshire and his son the Earl of Burlington, recently spoke out after they were told that the rent they pay will increase up to €50 per hectare in 2029.

The farmers on the commonage told media that they had previously been paying €5 per hectare for over 20 years. The figure increased to €15 in 2024, and €17.50 in 2025. They were recently told by Lismore Estate that it will now increase every year up to 2029.
One sheep farmer, Thomas Fitzgerald said there are concerns they will be ‘hunted’ off the land by the increase, and he has refused to pay the increased rent until it can be negotiated. In response, Lismore Estate has refused to provide him with a letter of evidence to prove he is leasing the land.
Sinn Féin TD Conor D. McGuinness raised the issue to the Minister for Agriculture, Martin Heydon in the Dáil last week.
“I want to raise the issue of hill farmers on the Knockmealdown Mountains in County Waterford,” Deputy McGuinness said. “They are currently in dispute with a landlord over exorbitant rent increases. I know the Minister will not intervene but the Department has effectively taken a side in an ongoing dispute here in holding these farmers over a barrel because no farm payments are being issued while the dispute goes on because of the requirement to provide a commonage-evidence letter.
“This is effectively the State siding with the landlord. These farmers rely on that farm payment. They farm other lands as well as the ones that are in dispute. This has echoes of darker times in our history when absentee landlords pushed farmers of the land. The Department needs to take a realistic look at this,” he added.
In response, Minister Heydon said: “I am aware of the particular case in Waterford that Deputy McGuinness has raised. It is a bit beyond the scope of this question. The issue of single farm payments comes down to who is the active farmer. That is the position on that question. I hope a resolution can be found in the near future”.
Deputy McGuinness said that the response received by the Minister was “wholly inadequate” and confirms that the Government is “taking a hands off approach.”
He added: “These farmers are facing rent increases of up to 900 percent. At the same time, they are being denied access to their farm payments because they cannot produce a commonage evidence letter while the dispute is ongoing. That leaves them trapped, under pressure, and with their livelihoods at risk”.
“This has echoes of darker times when absentee landlords pushed Irish farmers off the land. That is a comparison that should deeply concern this Government.
“The Minister’s response boiled down to a narrow technical definition of ‘active farmer’ and a hope that the issue resolves itself. That is not good enough. These are real families who rely on those payments to survive and to continue farming.
“This is about the future of hill farming and rural communities in places like the Knockmealdowns. Once this way of life is lost, it cannot simply be restored.
“The Minister must now intervene. He must ensure that no farmer loses their payments because of documentation issues arising from an ongoing dispute, and he must engage to support a fair and sustainable outcome for those farming these lands,” Deputy McGuinness concluded.
A spokesperson for Lismore Estate provided the following statement: “A rent review was conducted in 2023 which informed the proposed rents for tenants of the Knockmealdown Mountains on the Lismore Estate, up to and including 2029”.
“This proposal was endorsed by an independent agricultural consultant, and we are working with tenants on its gradual phased implementation,” the spokesperson for Lismore Estate added.

Duchy of Cornwall tenants ‘enormously stressed’ over Devon estate sell-off
The Herald, Sat 28th March 2026

Ref: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/national/25976758.duchy-cornwall-tenants-enormously-stressed-devon-estate-sell-off/

Tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall have been left “enormously stressed” following plans to sell off land on an estate in Devon.

The Bradninch estate, near Cullompton, has been part of the duchy for centuries and is owned by the eldest son of the monarch.

As heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales inherited the estate – a portfolio of land, property and investments valued at more than £1 billion – when his father became King.

The duchy provides William, who is the 25th Duke of Cornwall, with a private income of nearly £23 million a year.

The money is used to fund the charitable, private and official lives of William, the Princess of Wales and their children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis.

The duchy said the sales were part of an ongoing review into where it can make the “most social and environmental impact across our existing portfolio” and tenants were being given the chance to buy their farms.

In a letter to The Times newspaper, local resident John Palmer said: “This is unexpected and shocking news, and is enormously stressful for tenants and employees of the duchy estate.

“It is said that the tenants will have first option of buying their farms, some of which have been in the same family for generations.

“It will be difficult or impossible for some duchy tenants to raise the necessary capital in these financially challenging times for British farmers.”

George Dunn, chief executive of the Tenant Farmers Association (TFA), said: “The Tenant Farmers Association is aware of conversations currently live on the duchy’s Bradninch estate involving the duchy informing its tenants that it is selling that bit of its portfolio and giving the tenants first refusal before doing so.

“Obviously, the association is disappointed that the duchy is selling, but it is part of their current plans for rationalisation and, in the world of the second best, the TFA is pleased, at least, to see that sitting tenants are to be given first refusal on purchasing.

“The association has no reports of tenants receiving notices to quit.

“So, whilst unable to confirm or deny those reports, it might be occurring on farm business tenancy agreements where notice is available to the duchy so that it can sell with vacant possession if the sitting tenant is not interested in a purchase.

“Obviously, where the tenant is unable or unwilling to purchase the freehold, there will be a major upheaval in respect of their farm businesses given their expectation to have been tenants on those farms into the long term in light of the long-term nature of Duchy of Cornwall tenancies.”

Will Bax, chief executive of the Duchy of Cornwall, said: “Over the past year, we have been reviewing where we can make the most social and environmental impact across our existing portfolio.

“We will be reinvesting significantly in areas where there is the greatest need and potential.

“To drive this social and environmental impact means making some very tough decisions.

“These decisions are made carefully and with a long-term view.

“With any sale, our priority is to manage the process with compassion and to give our tenants as much time and support as possible.

“Many of our farm tenants are telling us that they see this is an exciting opportunity for their families to buy their own properties for the first time.”