The Wall

Just did a quick check ... 23 topics ready to go, which to run here today, at Orphans?  For example, there's our X colleague Deryl:

... or maybe Ed "Post Office" Davey and henchpersons:

There's just so much of it about to comment on ... but I thought (for once) ... why not go obliquely ... current but oblique ... do you know of this lady?

To bring you up to speed, she was the premier female downhill skiier, no question, for many years ... some of you saw her crash out at these winter olympics ... more than ouch ... three operations on her mangled legs and what statement did she make?

She's going to sign up to the paralympics for next time.

Her courage?  Astounding. Her fitness? Astounding, given that she crashed out and did her ACL days before these olympics and still competed. The girl who won was apparently also American.

As a person who skied myself, high-intermediate, no more, plus I was right beside the Hahnenkamm Streif course decades back and skied on a bit of the course straight after the event ... it's certainly not for the faint of heart.

Which raises the question ... is it for the foolhardy?  And getting more specific ... is it for a 41 year old woman with a leg injury?  Is it for any 41 year old woman?  There's certainly a thing called The Wall in babymaking ... I'd suggest it's also in sport.

For example, I was building a boat until my heart attack in the last decade. Could I do it now?  Nope. It's the balance thing in the ears ... unsafe on a sailing craft now.  Men, e.g. football players? Late 30s in rugby, into the 40s in association.  There really are limits.

Who decides?  Well, in Lindsey's case, she obviously did, based on her star status. Mental ability to handle  the end?  Who knows?  Should the officials have shut her down? Phew!  Who knows?  Not easy, is it?  Most people want to go out on a high, doing something worthwhile.

So, Should The BBC ‘Journalists ‘Be Charged As Accessories?

Men are covertly filming women on nights out, then making money by posting the videos online, a BBC investigation has found.

The videos, often described as "walking tours" or "nightlife content", are published on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. They focus almost entirely on women in dresses and skirts, many filmed from behind or at low angles, sometimes revealing intimate parts of the body.

 Hmm, is this illegal? Upskirting is but this doesn't seem to be that....

We tracked down nearly 50 women who had been filmed and found that many were unaware of what had happened. They expressed feelings of fear and humiliation.

 So the exposing of it by the BBC caused this? That makes them an acceessory, surely? 

Our team went undercover in the city, filming men as they covertly recorded women on a night out, exposing some of the most prolific operators, linked to 12 accounts. This included a local taxi driver and two men who had travelled from Sweden to film in the UK. Two other men, whose channels claim they are based in Norway and Monaco, were spotted filming but we were not able to confirm their identities.

Because you tried and they told you to fuck off?  

It is not a crime to film in public spaces... 

 Thank you! So why is the BBC focussed on something that isn't a crime? Aren't there real crimes deserving of investigation?

...but a lawyer specialising in image-based abuse said these types of videos fall into a legally "grey area" and could break harassment and voyeurism laws.

Well, yes, no doubt. That's what you pay a lawyer for, after all. To tell you what you want to hear. 

A separate BBC investigation last month exposed how male influencers claiming to offer pick-up advice use smart glasses to record conversations with women and then post the footage online. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said in response that the government wouldn't tolerate new technology being used to create more violence and harassment against women and girls.

Because that's the government's prerogative, clearly.  

Who decides what we do and do not do?

The issue with the BBC and other MSM is that they do not cover the major issues, only that which is either compatible with or which pushes the Woke agenda. But various online sources have been infiltrated as well, e.g. TikTok, FB, Instagram and so many more.

A second issue is the word "libertarian", which was the pool from which Orphans emerged long ago. To those who want zero restrictions on their behaviour, e.g. the Hamas and Climate activists, those throwing paint st old portraits in galleries etc., a classical liberal would say that that's not liberty, that's licentiousness.  Care nothing for anyone but me-me-me.

Classical liberalism says maximum freedom to live life to the best of our capacity, in an atmosphere of encouragement for initiative. That WEF clown who said it's the end of "rugged individualism" and now is the time for diverse, all in this together compliance in finding a new world of peace, harmony blah blah blah was quoting from the marxist playbook ... a classical liberal will be dead against that guff.

But a WEFer would counter ... do you classical liberals not agree there must be constraints on human behaviour, e.g. the loud neighbour at night, those blocking roads etc? The answer is ... it depends what is being restricted. Murdering full term babies in the womb?  Mutilated men in women's sport?  Who decides what is "for our good"?  The lovable WEF and EU politburos?  Aunty Von Leyen?  Aunty BBC?

You do see the issue.  And the porn and other perversions taught in schools?  That's ok, is it?

Lastly, there are two screenshots here ready to go ... one is Massie, Boebert, Luna, speaking of the names they saw on the "Epstein list" ... plus one lady writing of the NHS cancelled appointments. I used neither, mainly as I've run out of column space here now. That was an editing decision by me, Julia decides hers too.

Are we wicked censors? I mean, where is that middling position where clearly some things are vile, some things we have no time to do today?  The potential for political confluct, even over this, is high.

It's Not His Style Of Communication, It's The Fact You Can't Believe Anything He Says

That's his real problem, Andy.

...the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent wage stagnation and the cost of living crisis ended that semi-contented apathy. The public appetite for frank politicians, which had never completely gone away – as was shown in Britain by the enduring popularity of vivid communicators such as Tony Benn – started to grow again, until it became a hunger so powerful that politics changed to sate it.

Changed for the better, or worse, Andy? 

Wider social, cultural and technological shifts have added to the value of clear political communication. The decline of deference and formal manners, and the creation of uninhibited digital spaces and networks, have given us a world of outrageous YouTubers and indiscreet voice notes, unbuttoned podcasts and confessional pop songs with the vocals mixed so high that you can hear the singer breathing.

And how does that translate to the buyer’s remorse of all those Labour voters realising they’ve ended up with a very unwanted pig in a poke in Starmer? 

Against the backdrop of all this intimate – or intimate-seeming – public communication, a typically formal Keir Starmer speech or statement, while appropriate for delicate foreign policy work such as his trip to China, in a domestic context sounds almost as out of date and incomprehensible to many voters as a politician from the 1950s.

It’s time for the government to speak differently. That won’t necessarily save it, so numerous are its enemies and problems. But at least Labour will be back in the conversation.

But it’s plain now - to anyone with two brain cells, anyway - that the problem isn't with what Starmer says or how he says it. It's that whatever it is, it's invariably a lie.

Never speak first

This is from IYE at Unherdables and is interesting advice for the phone: "“The 3 second silent call: why you should never speak first.”

It's American and might apply only there but maybe it applies in general ... video, then I've some thoughts on't.

Whether you buy that that's how they operate or not, it's not bad advice in general and along with today's hackers and censors, a cautious approach to any communication, even emails, net search or VPN, surely seems wise, esp. if you're sitting on a nestegg accumulated over time.

In my case, last evening came changed banking terms and conditions ... if I agree, I can still use online banking. At the same time, Apple are trying to get my financial and other details and are hammering me to take this intrusive update.  They're all at this constant, inexorable, ratcheting encroachment on privacy.

For a start, I do not use landline, though I still have one in case there's some technical verification demand down the track. I have no smartphone, just a dumbphone, no data, hardly use the phone, though it's on, except when on a long task or project.  That messes them up something awful.

I never answer anyway, unless the person is in my address book.I take no callbacks. Major institutions though whom I've given it to can text me, anyone else is blocked. I use no voicemail or answering service.  With texts, I usually phone back ... but never take phoneback from them.

Turning to online things and our devices ... if any panel appears with no way out, no x in the corner, I exit or if it freezes the exit, just shut down. I generally keep the downstairs buzzer off ... those I wish to speak to have my number.

Looking at that "x in the corner" thing, I just exit a different way and swap ipads ... never click on it, no matter what. The exception is cookies, then every so often ... clear all cookies. The golden rule is: "If they want you to do something ... don't do it, however attractive it might seem"

There's something I posted on X recently, picked up by a few people: "Being pushed into doing things we do not wish to, in fact being rushed into it, sign here, is not on my list of "to dos", no way, Jose. Cattle herding us ... I automatically go the other way, even if it's to my advantage to comply."

Naturally, it comes down to temperament and long, bitter experience. As a child on a bike, I avoided places the other kids and trusted adults warned of ... it's still the same way.

Hoping this was of some value to readers today.

Sir John Halstead

The difficulty in running this on blgr is that it does not embed the link:

https://x.com/JamesMelville/status/2020038384303968530?s=20

However, this was James Melville's text:

This scene from Yes Prime Minister is like the Starmer / Mandelson saga being performed in a time capsule.

And this is that clip in a different form:

At the same time, in the light of the Rupert Lowe led inquiry into the abused children, in lieu of the govt Whitewash, there is this link too:

https://x.com/BBMagaMom/status/2019999896577691685?s=20

For those wishing to insta-pooh-pooh that one, quoting the False Memory Syndrome panel which itself was packed with those later found out, I have a year's investigation on it on 2 gig usb stick somewhere ... long time since I looked at it and as some will say ... it was 80s America, wonn it, nothing to do with us? Ditto with the Belgian case. After all, who wants to investigate Solvay snd Bertelsmann anyway?

There is, however, the little matter of the Cambridge Five ... that's closer to home, yes? Christine Keeler, Mandy Rice-Davies?

Fox/Henhouse Interface Time Again

Funny how often that seems to happen, isn't it?

A former learning mentor who sexually abused five vulnerable teenage girls who came to him for support at school has been jailed for eight years.

Predators go where the prey gathers and is vulnerable, and this school in particular seems to have been a whaterhole teeming with vulnerable and wounded prey. 

And it seems the culture he was raised in was a large part of the issue: 

At the same court on Thursday, as Udaw was surrounded by almost 20 family and friends, Judge Giles Curtis-Raleigh told him: "Your actions were predatory, directed against girls who had been referred or come directly to you because they were having problems in their lives and/or in the school where you were working as a learning mentor 

"In each case it was a flagrant, gross breach of trust."

Came to support him by intimidating the witnesses:  

After her statement, prosecutor Catherine Donnelly flagged that one of the defendant's family members was making a "rude gesture" towards the woman while she was speaking, and the judge ordered him to leave court and not come back.

Why wasn't he arrested and charged?  

Catherine Purnell, defending, said her client's crimes were followed by a "very long period of not offending".

Fred West must have been busy laying the odd patio in between, Catherine. Is that the best you can do?  

"During that time, he grew up properly in a way that young men have to when they create and nurture a nuclear family who are everything to him," she said, adding the proceedings have been "devastating" for his loved ones.

Consequences again. 

Are you eighteen or older?

Just a short topic (for me) today ... one screenshot which sums up the criminal ridiculousness of Britain right now ... plus the west.

Added to this is this ridiculous proof of eighteen or over.  Andy at our place:

How am I going to stay in touch with truth and suchlike when I’ve got to prove I’m over sixteen?

To which DAD replied:

The other day I bought a bottle of wine – a rarety for me, but I had a visitor.

I had to prove that I was over 16. I shall be 90 at the end of the year. The cashier was a young lass from my village whom I have known for at least 10 years. We both thought that it was humorous, but ‘Rules are Rules'.

Yes, well I have one coming up myself with the NHS, pre any treatment they deem necessary ... except I'm not complying ... therefore, I might just have no health service access at all thereafter ... and I do plan to do that ... just try to stay healthy.

Everything going on is iniquitous right now and no one is marching on n10 or Whitehall.

Wrong, We, The Longsuffering Taxpayer Do....

Scotland Yard has paid out almost £50,000... 

Have they really? No, of course not. It comes out of the taxpayer's pocket as always, when it really should come out of the pockets of the idiots in blue. And idiots they once again proved themselves: 

Armed police smashed into the home of Roy Morton, who has a pacemaker, fired the stun gun, pinned him down and handcuffed him after a call handler provided the wrong address for a firearms incident.

The terrified father-of-two was then arrested for affray and detained for 11 hours after the raid at 7.13am on December 28, 2021, despite his heart condition and the case being a clear instance of mistaken identity.

How clear a case? Well, Reader, the suspect they were looking for was a young black man in his 20s. Mr Morton is white and 80 years old.

An internal investigation conducted by the Met found the call handler missed multiple opportunities to spot that the address was incorrect.

 You don't say..?

Despite this, the force denied full liability and a five-day trial was listed for next month. The claims were settled on January 22, however.

Understandably, who wouldn't? So it must have been decided faily quickly?

Mr Morton's lawyer, Rachel Harger, an associate at Bindmans, slammed the force for pursuing years of litigation to settle the case. 

Oh. Well, why not, since it doesn't cost them anything... 

'There was an early public acknowledgement that a serious error had occurred, yet Mr Morton was forced to pursue proceedings to the brink of trial to achieve any finality,' she added. 

And what do the Met have to say for themselves? The usual platitudes: 

Detective Chief Superintendent Neil Smithson said: 'We wholeheartedly apologise to Mr Morton and understand the impact this incident has had, while also recognising the amount of time it's taken to reach a conclusion in this case. 

'We hope Mr Morton is able to move forward and thank him for his patience during this process. 

Did he really hsve a choice?  

'We have reviewed the circumstances of this incident to identify any learnings and implemented specific training procedures to avoid similar instances in the future. This includes delivering training to each and every call handler within the Met.'

You mean they weren't already trained to ensure they got the right address? Well, why would they be, when they've got no skin in the game? 

The countryside is for our people ... plus their dogs

There's Wokery plus its nasty, loony, Fabian narrative, yes ... and then there is Globo-psycho-devilry ... the latter I don't post against here, preferring to address it at UHC where readers have been following the occasional snippets getting out, over a period nearing two decades. With the Epstein flood in the past few days, finally people can see we were not quite the whack jobs we were dismissed as.

The source of both the Wokery and anti-human devilry is the same ... and it does come from high up, as the Queen made reference to.  This post is about the latest Wokery. If I could have written it better than Jim C, I would have but as he did a fine job, then here it is below, followed by Lucy Connolly.