King Charles backed these care homes for 40 years – now Net Zero is forcing them to close
By Paul Homewood
It’s hard to think of anything more damning about the King’s obsession with climate change:
A care home charity backed by the King is being forced to shut down properties because of Government net zero rules.
Martin Green, chief executive of the country’s leading social care body Care England, said on Friday that the Government had “slapped another fee” on chronically underfunded care homes by introducing legislation which will force providers to meet new energy efficiency standards at great cost.
He warned care providers across the country faced closure due to the prohibitive expense of installing more energy efficient double glazing, insulation and heating systems, expected to cost social care providers hundreds of thousands of pounds.
He said: “The Government needs to see that, without help, care homes will not be able to deliver on this without losing beds.”
It came as the 60-year-old care home provider Abbeyfield, of which the King has been a patron for more than 40 years, confirmed 43 of its homes face closure because of the unmanageable costs of improving their Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating to C by 2030.
In a letter seen by this newspaper, residents were this week told an extensive review had concluded the cost of upgrading its properties under government net zero plans was “too great” for the charity to meet, saying it had identified a number of homes “which can no longer be operated sustainably”.
Residents of an Abbeyfield home in Cornwall told local news reporters it was “one of the worst things I have heard in my life” and that the prospect of losing their home was keeping them up a night, while a 76-year-old resident of a care home in Wiltshire said she “didn’t know why this was happening”.
Charities have warned elderly residents’ lives were at risk, due to the shock of the prospect of losing their homes.
The upgrades are necessary because of the Government’s efforts to meet its target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Full story
This fiasco lies at King Charles’ door as much as the political establishment’s.
It is all very well for Charles to pontificate and issue warnings of X months to save the planet. But we are now seeing the practical outworkings of his incessant political campaign, which he began years ago.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Frightening! It really is enough to make one weep.
And it nothing but political virtue-signalling. Nothing the UK (or any other country) can do is going to shift the climate pendulum half a degree and if they don’t understand that by now then we are surely doomed!
Very true Mike there is no commonsense reason for net zero.
All that Charlie does is follow the WEF guidelines.
Seems to be a glaring lack of leadership?????
We had one of these places 100 yards from us. Very popular and well run and far cheaper than other care homes so it served a real purpose. I doubt they could have made a profit so no fat left when the inevitable consequences of expensive green madness set in.
It’s widely said that obliging old, frail people to move from one care home to another usually leads to some accelerated deaths. Will Charles the Daft accept that there will be blood on his hands?
“Charles the Daft” I really like that.
‘Tampon Charlie’ is a better fit !!
Start a campaign to name him.
A song? ‘Tampon Charlie is my name…’
Total false economy – what do old people do ? sleep outdoors – die of the cold –
– pay enormous fees to cover upgrades – move to warm countries in reverse migration – get a tent – sleep in Buckingham palace – it could take a few thousand – phone matt hancock for some midazolam .
All this for a wilfully ignorant hypothesis on CO2 gas at .0004 % by grant hungry druid scaremongers who used to tell the peasants if we dont sacrifice a few (not us ) of you the sun wont come back up .
I did see a photo of the kings mum and a few royals plus churchhill at a druid ceremony – mmmm ?
“… .0004 % …”
0.0004 expresses the proportion of CO2, i.e. parts per one. Since % means literally per hundred the proportion has to be multiplied by one hundred if you want to talk percentages – and so 0.04 % is correct. As whole numbers are easier to understand and remember we may say four molecules of carbon dioxide per ten thousand molecules of other gases.*
* The difference between 4 per 10,000 and 4 per (10,000 -4) is inconsequential.
your correct – just incorrectly stuck on the % and i am an accountant lol
Boohoo.
Cry for the old people if you wish. But you should be crying for yourselves. You are ALL going to die.
In the great left-coast State of Washington, these sorts of places are visited each year (I think) and inspectors look for problems, say a stairs or railing is crumbling, the roof leaks, and so. In one case a family member brought a small electric heater (the type that can fall over and start a fire) into her mother’s room.
The care homes are given a set amount of time to fix deficiencies.
One place I visited frequently did, eventually, shut down and the building was upgraded and repurposed. Such actions are rare, but well intentioned.
In the “net zero” proposal many places will need cash infusions or they will be looking to re-house many folks simultaneously.
Three options might be to cancel the “net zero” madness, use all the green subsidy money to build new facilities, or both of the previous.
Raise your hand if you think option 3 is the best idea.
Always good to read about the parallel universe across the pond. Thanks John. In Norwich U.K. Abbeyfieldd has/had the old Archdeacon’s house in the Cathedral Close. Ornate high Victorian domestic design of little interest to those on the waiting list expected to take a full repairing and insuring lease.
Thank goodness Abbeyfield was willing to take it on at the time.
Listed buildings may be entitled to special dispensation. Net Zero should check.
We’ve seen nothing yet, just wait for Charles the Green, Starmer and from the shadow no other than Ed Miligreen
I predict that Abbeyfield will be saved by Government after lobbying by Charles the Daft despite him able to fund a complete overhaul of all their homes out of all the revenue he gets, via the Crown Estates, from the offshore wind farms rent.
The insanity is also going to reduce availability and increase cost of rented property. A solution from Italy, knock the whole lot down and build new. Intended to shock people to their senses probably.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/05/19/greatest-reset-europe-could-achieve-net-zero-by-demolishing-its-historic-buildings-and-starting-again-says-italian-central-bank/
Quite right. That Coliseum place in Rome hasn’t even got a proper roof let alone insulated walls.
Needs knocking down and a nice modern block of flats put in its place. It could be called “The Colisuem” just to keep the link with the past. I am sure no one will notice.
Like everything else in the AGW scam, things are not, in reality, what is claimed for them and tjetrby intended both to reassure and then scare.
Witness windmills, EVs, air heaters, Hydrogen as a fuel.
All quite as barmy as they are useless and unnecesary.
but cost and waste a mint.
Could there be grounds for a class action lawsuit against the government for willfully making these poor souls homeless and destitute?
Class actions don’t really exist in UK law. My understanding is that in USA it’s something of a scam enriching the lawyers and the fake ‘charities’ that usually get paid off.
“Class actions don’t really exist in UK law.”
It is a growing field.
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/class-actions-in-england-and-wales
The anti-diesel extremists are trying to do one. Look at the adverts on UK TV channels. And for example this website (not the only one on a very quick Google search ) https://mydieselclaim.com/
>>“Class actions don’t really exist in UK law.”
Surely there is a way of taking legal action against individual MPs, i.e. those who voted in favour of the infamous Climate Change Act and any other “climate”, “green” and “net zero” policies for wilful ignorance of the electorate and all the resulting damage and additional costs imposed on ordinary people and business, not only for the care homes, but for everything else as well.
In U.S. law, “qualified immunity” protects government officials.
In Australia the “Shield of the Crown” operates to protect the Public Service and Parliamentarians from their incompetence.
Initially it was presumed that government and its agents acted in the “public interest”. Unfortunately they now act in the interests of the lobbies and the multis. Big wind, big Pharma, big solar. Big problem.
Presumably the Shield operates in the UK too.
Maybe there is a route via the express prohibition of retrospective laws in the international treaties. Look at what is being imposed on things that were legal at time of original manufacture and purchase.
What law has been broken? The point that we should all understand is that this is evil being done wholly and entirely by the law, not in contravention of it. It is the law the dors the evil, and it would be the breaking of the law that did good.
Fraid not. If it’s like councils then the decision is by the corporate body so any action would be against that body not the individuals. If the member acted illegally then actions could be take but only in regards to the illegal action rather than the corporate decision.
That’ll be just about all the feckless MPs in the UK. As Net Zero is essentially misanthropic, killing off old people won’t particularly bother them.
Does the King actually make regulations?
How can he? Please explain. I had thought the elected government was responsible
He may favour certain actions but the Parliamentary process is democratic. We have a long history of limiting the power of the Monarch . I can tell those contributors who were channelled into the Science side at school. Two cultures now in so many countries. C P Snow warned of this . Look him up.
Contact your local MPs
If it were democratic, the MPs would do what the people want instead of ignoring them and inventing taxes, regulations and bans.
>>Parliamentary process is democratic
Don’t underestimate the influence the monarch can have. It’s amazing what a few knighthoods, various gongs, special invitations and appointments can do.
I think you over-estimate his ability to act. (‘Influence’ is a different matter.) He doesn’t decide on the knighthoods, gongs or appointments and probably has little say in the special invitations as well.
As Mavis Emberson says above, the powers of a constitutional monarch are pretty tightly circumscribed.
Who decided to Knight Charles’ colleague Sir Klaus Shwab KCMG, he of young world leaders and transhumanism, corporations and ESG to enforce the end of fossil fuels?
The point is that he should be made to face the consequences of his calls for action to solve climate change. This is what happens – elderly people lose their homes
Charles isn’t the brightest of people. With the same disdain and disgust as his predecessors, he looks down upon his ‘subjects’ as polluters of his precious earth.
We have Acts of Parliament and we have statutory instruments (regulations). Acts of Parliament are proposed by the Commons, are reviewed by the Lords and eventually when all are happy they receive Royal Assent. In theory the monarch could withhold Royal Assent but I know of no instance of this.
Statutory Instruments are made by ministers and are not debated in Parliament. All EU regulation was put into effect in the UK by SI since they had already been approved. Many Acts contain the phrase ‘the minister may make regulations’ which means that the real legislation lies in an SI – or not if the minister has chosen not to make regulations.
Thx for info, gezza.
US has no SI. But we do have >600 agencies created by congress to enforce Congress’s legislation. Mostly unconstitutional – the laws AND the agencies – but, alas, people like fascism.
What has morphed is that said agencies start making their own rules, creating a new level of autocratic mandates. The Supreme Court has struck down some of them, saying they can only enforce what Congress gave them, but the problem is so vast, it is pissing in the wind.
“…the Monarch could withhold Royal Assent…”
Not really. There is an official in Parliament who simply proclaims, at a certain point in the proceedings, “Le Roi veult!” which is Medieval French for, “The King wishes it!”
The idea that laws actually go to the King for signature (as certain legislative documents do go to the US President) and that it requires a positive action by him to make it valid is false.
Of course, the King can say anything he wants, in public or private, as he is above the ordinary law; but he would be exceedingly foolish to encourage Republicanism by going too far withthis.
Although most Poms believe that the UK is a constitutional monarchy, it is in fact still a monarchy. The monarch is still in charge. He/she is still top dog. The government is subservient to the monarch. Hence ‘His/Her Majesty’s Government’. The government is not answerable to the people, only to the monarch. That’s what the ‘oath of allegiance’ was all about at the coronation. By sleight of hand, the people believe they live in a democracy, and elect their representatives, but in reality, no matter which party sits in the government benches, the monarch rules behind the scenes. The PM still has an audience with the monarch each week, in which the affairs of state are discussed. The people do not have such access and stand bugger all chance of changing government policies. The net zero policy of the government was not instituted without the knowledge or approval of the monarch. So, while monarchs, on the surface, try to convince the public that they are only ambassadors for tourism and patrons of worthy causes, they are also playing a double game and contributing to the globalists policy of societal disintegration, genocide and enslavement for the ‘useless eaters’. King Charles is undoubtedly aware of his hypocrisy in being a patron of the care homes and his complicity in creating the conditions which could lead to their destruction and the early deaths of many aged people. But who is going to accuse him of that? After all, Britons love their monarchy! Don’t they?
You’re not talking about any system of government I recognise, Bill.
The monarch is the titular head of state. His function in government is to ‘advise and warn’, not to interfere in the running of the government itself. His advisors include the Privy Council of which all his ministers are members. In theory he can refuse to put his signature to Acts of Parliament; the first time he does he will provoke a constitutional crisis.
I realise that there are Aussies who don’t understand this arrangement but we do, and weird though it may seem to some it has served us well enough for the last 300 years. We are currently going through a tricky phase but it isn’t the first time and it won’t be the last.
Curiously enough the UK’s political establishment and President Putin are facing the same problem – having got themselves entangled in an impossible situation, they need an exit strategy but have committed so strongly to the narrative that finding a way out is difficult.
I can’t help Putin, but there is a way out for the AGW bedwetters.
From 1910 to 1940 the world warmed at a rate that equalled the rate from 1975. The CO2 warming signal was, according to climate science, not detectable before 1975, so there must have been either a natural warming, which the warmists dare not admit, or another anthropogenic warming cause has contributed, which means Net Zero is less urgent. The latter case, if accepted, lets us off the hook as a civilisation and gives the doom-mongers a cover story as they change tack.
I suggest they read my Facebook post and the post at TCW entitled Are We Smoothing Our Way to Global Warming. A suffiently plausible scenario is suggested to explain the 20th century warming periods, the lack of a stratospheric hot spot and the anomalous warming of inter alia the Baltic, the Red Sea, the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmora.
It’s worth a look.
JF
This is evild one by bureaucrats. The most vulnerable people will suffer fir no benefit to anyone anywhere ever.
If you want to why the state always does bad, this is the clear example.
If all the gabfests, especially international ones, like IPCC. the UN, G7 and G20, Davos and their ilk were outlawed, the virtue signaling mutual admiration club, would not have a platform. These fora are where they like to outdo each other be it inane climate promises or throwing away taxpayers money with abandon. These self styled elites see themselves as part of the new super elites who dream to rule the Post National World without the inconvenience of democratic process. The “common people” of Western nations are awakening and will not accept the idea that their standards of living will drop with food and energy out of control inflation, caused by green madness in the effort to achieve the unattainable goal of NetZero.
We have been told by the media, Charles was not supposed to be “The Krazy King.” I read once you can judge a society by the way it treats its least fortunate; but no one would expect His Majesty to know about that. I have also heard a rumor that Klaus and his WEF crew are secretly turning these pensioner homes into Soylent Green factories using the Net Zero funding. A sort of ROI. Soylent, gives a new meaning to the term being Green
I realise that this is off topic Paul, but who is correct Ed Hoskins or Hotwhopper regarding the CO2 concentration effect- does the effect diminish with concentration or is it more linear. I feel that the truth is important.
Yes, it diminishes logarithmically.
So, say, doubling CO2 from 400 to 800ppm raises temps by 1C. You would thereafter need to double from 800 to 1600 to get the next 1C
“…logarithmically…”
The atmosphere of Venus has 300,000 times more carbon dioxide than Earth’s and Venus is closer to the Sun; yet its surface temperature is 740 K compared to 300 K for Earth. Not really that much higher. Logarithmically, 300,000 is fifteen doublings from a start of 1. So the effect seems logarithmic rather than linear when the process is taken to an extreme.
A rough and ready comparative example, of course, but interesting nevertheless.
Many thanks
In a sense, the Earth has as much carbon dioxide as Venus, but it is locked up in carbonate rocks. The oceans scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as part of ‘the carbon cycle.’ An increase above the ‘normal’ amount of carbon dioxide in the air might or might not be having effects that are ‘inconvenient’ to many sorts of creatures – but a halving of the present low level would wipe out life on land as we know it. Just saying.
There is a religious horror of ‘carbon’ which has been engendered in people. Of course, those irrational and emotional feelings, of pollution and taboo, have had no effect on the decisions of our wise and benevolent rulers.
I see that Baron West the (clown) former head of the ever-shrinking Royal Navy is scaremongering again. Apparently,
Putin might have placed sleeper-bombs on the under-water cables leading from our off-shore windfarms. As if that would matter!
It would be great if you could speak on GB Newsat some stage, preferably on Neil Oliver’s programme, as they are debating the climate alarmism on a regular basis now.
I have heard that Mars and possibly other planets have also been warming, which clearly points to solar influence. Do you know anything about it Paul?
Whatever it is on the other planets, it is definitely not “man-made”. It is natural causes just as it is on this planet. The alarmists simply ignore all the climate changes before the things they now want to tax, regulate and ban out of existence even existed. And those things don’t exist on the other planets either.
“The oceans scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as part of ‘the carbon cycle.”
Correct. There is a steady rain of calcareous plankton skeletons, forming limestone in some areas.
But it’s not locked away forever, though maybe a couple billion years. It is a cycle. Limestone at the edges of tectonic plates ground into magma will release vast amounts of CO2 . . . often dramatically.
Man pretends to know how much is released from volcanoes. For all we know, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last hundred could be from increased volcanic activity. And, make no mistake, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a very, very good thing. To wit, even if all the climate change BS were true, it would be worth it to have more CO2 available. CO2 is life. Wanting less is anti-life.
“…Mars is warming…”
A Conservative Politician (back when there were such creatures), said about this discovery*, “Scientists are now looking for the SUV’s causing it!”
*Yawn!
A little off topic but I see that our favourite idiot, Phoebe Plummer has been invited to speak at the Oxford Union. Last week, I believe. Would love to see a report on it.
I’m sure Charles the Turd could pay for upgrades himself.
If, if the bonkers, virtue signalling old coot chuckles x3 was capable of exercising his ossified mind and attempt some joined up thinking and extrapolation thus. Maybe, he might arrive at a conclusion which even he might baulk at. Sustainability is just insane green chat, imposing dubious solutions (heat pumps etc) on people unable to afford it makes matters worse, at latitudes of + 52ºN : Cold kills. Humanity, we need more CO2.