Eff off, Argentina and Trump

What a stupid move by both:

Just to remind Britain herself

 

Gallipoli was fought between the Allies — Britain, France, Australia, NZ, India and Newfoundland — and the Ottoman Empire/Germany.

If 1901 formalised Aus, 1915 blooded her. Lest any forget or the globopolitical class try to kill off their sacrifices, which the deep state is trying to do.

Didn’t You Read The Small Print?

The British perfumer Jo Malone has said she is “surprised and very sad” after being sued for more than £200,000 in damages for using her name on fragrances she created for the fashion chain Zara. It emerged last month that New York-based multinational Estée Lauder Companies, which owns brands M.A.C, Bobbi Brown, Estée Lauder and Jo Malone London, was taking legal action, claiming the fragrance entrepreneur infringed trademarks.

Malone sold her perfume brand to the US cosmetics group in 1999 in a deal under which she was blocked from using her name for particular commercial reasons, including the marketing of fragrance.

And it appears she didn’t fully understand what she was signing away…

She stepped down as creative director of the Jo Malone brand in 2006 and has since said she regretted selling the rights to her name, calling it the “biggest mistake of my life”.

She certainly realises now, when it’s too late! 

After a non-compete clause ended in 2011, Malone set up the Jo Loves brand. In 2019, the perfume brand launched a collaboration with Zara that included eight scents, which sell for £35.99. The packaging made clear the products were created by Malone and the latest version includes the words: “A creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.” Estée Lauder took issue with this wording, and high court documents show the company and Jo Malone Ltd expect to recover more than £200,000 in damages.

It’s hard to see how they could have done any different…but Malone still doesn’t fully understand , or more likely, thinks she won’t be called on her objections.

“My name is Jo Malone. I am the person, the fragrance creator, the entrepreneur, the cancer survivor, the person,” she said. “I never expected to receive a high court claim with my name on it.”

Then you shouldn’t have tried to end-run around the contact’s restrictions! 

She said when Zara approached her seven years ago about working together, “they approached me, they didn’t approach a company, they didn’t approach a brand, they didn’t approach a logo. They approached me, Jo Malone, the person, and asked whether I would start working with them and create beautiful fragrances that everyone could wear in the world.” She added: “I sold a company, I did not sell myself.”

You sold the name, the trademark. Thats the valuable thing. 

“We have gone above and beyond and above and beyond again to make sure everyone understands this has nothing to do with Jo Malone London, the company. This is very much Jo Malone. By using Ms Jo Malone CBE, Jo Malone creative director of Jo Loves, we’ve literally done as much as we possibly can … We’ve trained the staff, everything. 

“Where do I go from here? Who can I be? I can’t stop being a person. Nobody can stop being the character and the person that you are.”

Nobody's asking you to stop being a person, are they? 

All's fair in love and war

There's a case from back in the 60s in the US of Lt. William Calley who used excessive force, let's call it, in Vietnam.

Now I know of at least two currently reading this post who are what we'd call ageing Woke left and they're quite easily described by deed rather than by belief. They would go along with the Wiki page on Calley as definitive and comprehensive, even citing how Nixon put him under house arrest.

One interesting thing to me was that I was a radical student myself, a Fabian like many other Bill Ayers-es, leading to us pursuing careers in academia.  The difference is that I was subsequently deradicalised, mainly through maturing and becoming Young Conservative, through circumstances, inc. love, marriage and a not bad career, house, car, clipped lawns, flowerbeds etc. etc.

My point in this post is not Calley nor my own metamorphosis but that while it's dead easy to find all about Calley in the search engines, it's not so easy to find about John Kerry's sortie to a village where he did similar murder ... yes, unprotected villagers.  In his case though, he's protected by the whole globopsycho deep state, plus radical lefty apparatus which reaches into every aspect of our lives in the west today, which protects Hanoi Jane's treason, plus that of John McCain (leaving aside his J6 daughter for now).

One rule for me, another for thee ... two tier in other words. Why not explore The Weathermen, Zimmerman, Ayers, Obama?  Why not pursue those with equal fervour?  Why not pursue Kissinger, Warburg, Schwab? I'm thinking we all know the answer to that ... and the answer is highly political.

And so onto today on Lord Toby's site and this excerpt below:

Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, pursued a “witch hunt” against British troops which left decorated war heroes facing false accusations of murder and torture, despite being warned that the allegations were lies. The Telegraph, which uncovered the story in an investigation, has more.

An investigation by [the Telegraph] can reveal the Attorney General’s leading role in the Al-Sweady scandal, which left decorated war heroes facing false accusations of murder and torture for more than a decade.

Emails and legal documents show that Sir Keir Starmer’s closest Cabinet ally acted as lead counsel in civil claims against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and pressed for lucrative compensation despite mounting evidence that his eight Iraqi clients were “on the make”.

The Attorney General later insisted that it made no difference whether his clients were “a saint or a member of al-Qaeda” while suing British troops under human rights laws.

The question for us is which were lies and which plain truth? Which were focussed upon, which allowed to slip by ... and by whom?  Who is sufficiently "apolitical", not just kidding themselves that they are so, pursuing all the wrongdoing with equal fervour?

Who would pursue Kerry, Chappaquiddick and Obama with the same fervour that they'd pursue Nixon and Colson?

The Answer's 'Arrogance ' Of Course

“As soon as you’ve lost your major sponsors, you’re not going to be able to get any [replacements] back in that timeframe,” said a senior partner at a major entertainment law firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “The whole thing was premised on a house of cards.” 

No, the whole thing was a huge gamble that no-one would dare object and if they did, a risk averse government wouldn’t dare take action because he’s a black celebrity.

The unprecedented collapse of a major moment in the summer’s festival calendar has left figures in the music industry reeling, as well as many scratching their heads over why Festival Republic, part of concert giant Live Nation, took a chance on such an openly controversial figure.

Because they thought they could get away with it, of course! 

“Any lawyer with half a brain would have seen this coming,” the entertainment lawyer, whose clients include some of the biggest global names in the music industry, added.

It’s the entertainment business, brains aren’t required…

Festival Republic’s head, Melvin Benn, initially defended the booking, saying Ye, who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, had been suffering a manic episode when the comments were made. “In the context of everything else that’s happening, it is difficult to see how that decision could be anything but highly controversial and lead to a political outcry,” Tim Jotischky, head of the reputation division at PR firm PHA, said. While he admired that Benn had stood by his case for Ye to headline, he found it unconvincing: “Wireless is probably not the right space to test his mental health.”

No-one was testing it, they were simply using it as a ‘Get out clause’ because that usually works. But not this time! 

“The main lesson here is to never underestimate the strength of public opinion,” he said. “If you’re a promoter or festival organiser, you may now have to take a calculated risk with your bookings. That’s probably what Wireless has done. But let’s not pretend any of this is a big surprise.”

The only surprise here is coming from the people who arrogantly assumed cancel culture would never apply to them. 

Wanton destruction

Sometimes, it's better to just run one item than a dozen.  There are two aspects to this ... the issue in the video itself ... then there is something happenening at Orphans on top of that.

First, from Steve at another place:

All right, at some stage, this will be taken down by those toerags accusing us of "disinformation".  All right, tell me what is disinformation about this lowlife destroying a drystone wall in someone else's country?  Explain exactly what the disinformation is in the footage.

Here's the url by the way:

|https://youtu.be/PR_VnDfUvVg?si=M5Z_dXOsEffQ2lY0

It can also be seen at NOWP 1360.

Right.  Why are these people taking down posts which are doing the opposite of disinformation?  Who are they, hiding behind anonymity?

But even worse, they only ever do this if some leftist reading this site complains.  I know one of them well ... there could be others. Where's the pleasure in it for them?  The same spirit of destruction as that toerag in the video?

As every regular reader here knows fullwell ... we are in a war ... a fight to the death, even for our very countries.

Seems Some Are Allergic To Plain Speaking Too...

The owner of a burger restaurant who tells his staff to turn away customers with food allergies has defended his policy as 'extremely fair'. Jeff Taylor, who owns Bun X, which operates out of two pubs in Norwich, received a wave of criticism and a handful of one-star reviews after refusing to serve customers with food allergies, even if they were willing to take the risk. He said that Bun X is unable to cater for anyone with a gluten, nut, soya or sesame allergy and asks customers to inform staff about allergies in advance of their booking.

And predictably there’s OUTRAGE! at such plain speaking from the people who demand that their every whim are catered for.

However, Mr Taylor has addressed the bad reviews, telling BBC Radio Norfolk that 'we are not being pedantic, we are being extremely fair'.

Due to the size of the kitchen, he said the business had to make 'tricky decisions' after 'due diligence concluded that there is no safe way to 100% eradicate cross contamination'.

So as any business has the right to (or should have) he decided he wouldn’t take that risk. And so wouldn’t serve these people.

One person wrote: 'If you have a food allergy and you want to eat there, don't bother, they won't serve you. Was felt like I had a disease of something.'

Another person with a nut allergy said they were 'flat out refused service' despite accepting the risk, and that business's stance is 'not an acceptable one'.

They seem eager to paint their tantrum as some sort of ‘civil rights’ issue of discrimination as they’ve undoubtedly learned that that makes people give in. But Mr Taylor is made of sterner stuff: 

In response to the Google review about the family that was asked to leave because of a nut allergy, Mr Taylor replied:'However, you are so concerned that your daughter is allergic to nuts that YOU mention it to us! So your review should read, 'Gutted I chanced it and dragged my family out for dinner. Luckily for us the compassionate pros at Bun X are on the ball and protected my daughter!''

Perfect! There is no right to a burger, you aren’t Rosa Parkes, go home and eat there, where you can guarantee what you are putting in your mouth. 

The future of AI

Lord T, whose field is IT (slightly longer profile below the article), has sent a piece on where "AI" is headed ... he should know as he has to negotiate these things in a professional capacity.

The topic which dare not speak its name

Some of you good folk, not many, know we have enemy eyes here too at Orphans who love to snitch to the PTB ... who in turn have promptly erred on the side of untruth and stolen yet another post.  No matter ... the consensus will eventually get even to them on v**x *nj*r**s.

Meanwhile, this post today is this text below from Lord Toby's site:

“In this special episode of the Sceptic, host Laurie Wastell brings together four different perspectives on the growing problem of Muslim sectarianism in Britain. Guy Dampier of the Prosperity Institute shows how Pakistani clan structures led to the grooming gangs; researcher Daniel Dieppe highlights how the London Borough of Tower Hamlets fell to Bangladeshi-Muslim electoral corruption; the Critic‘s Chris Bayliss looks at how state authorities responded to Birmingham’s banning of Israeli football fans; and journalist David Shipley and Laurie discuss what the Labour Government’s latest social cohesion plan shows about how it’s approaching multiculturalism’s pathologies.”

Now, being both totally disinterested, plus not interested in their internecine tribal warfare, the obvious question is who can nip it in the bud, from the City to the Sea? Which comes down to the council elections first, which should favour Reform in most cases, which means more of the same policies, with a lot of lip service to the contrary …

… or Restore, still a work in progress and many are still not “admitting it yet” except in conversation., certainly not in any official poll. That’s it for now on the first topic above, otherwise this post too will be stolen.

But on the Reform, Restore thing, it reminds me of one of those 70s skits on tele ... may have been Python, Two Ronnies, whatever ... and it had a couple at a restaurant table complaining bitterly to each other about the food, the service, the hygiene ... in a most amusing way.

Maitre D walks past their table and asks how everything is ... food, service etc.

"Lovely thanks."

"Super."

That's Reform, the Jim Jordan of Britain ... bitterly moaning but then does nothing to alter it.  Now it's a fair criticism that Restore are in no position, currently, to take power and effect change but they're in a better place than Flip Flop Farage's "reed in the wind" "be nice to each in turn, in different company" policies ... the mark of mendacious politicians.

And so political debate and change goes on and on and on in Britain, nothing changing whilst we admire Ireland from afar ... with no one willing to stick the neck out and do a Lucy Connolly.  More than me jobsworth, mate.

Sure They Will...!

Reader, they couldn't find or rather keep a man, but they are going to find the solution!

Do I worry that as a single mum I’m more likely to raise a toxic boy? It’s complicated. I am of course terrified of my son – who does not yet own a phone – getting online and being fed the sort of misogynistic poison shown on Louis Theroux’s important, but flawed, Inside The Manosphere, which is still going great guns on Netflix. But does being a single mother actually increase that risk?

Probably, it increases all sorts of risks, which is why it was once something to avoid… 

Surprise, surprise: an opportunity to blame women, some of society’s hardest working at that, for the behaviour of men.

The toxic figures platformed in Theroux’s documentary, and the boys and young men being radicalised online, have not turned out this way because they were raised by single mothers.

No, it’s because of money, or rather, lack of it:

Reaching, yet again, for tired statistics – often drawn from outdated studies – about boys in single-parent homes (while ignoring the underlying economic factors) completely misses the point.Conversations like this only compound society’s suspicion of single mothers, reinforcing a narrative that positions them as part of the problem rather than recognising toxic masculinity as the real issue.

Forty-three per cent of children in lone-parent households live in poverty, compared to 26 per cent in two-parent families. It is economically difficult, and often impossible, for single-income households to meet the basic costs of family life.

That's one of the reasons why, for thousand of years, it's been discouraged. But you yhought you knew better, didn't you?

Children from the lowest-income households face stark inequalities: lower GCSE attainment, higher rates of emotional difficulties, and a significantly increased likelihood of experiencing poverty in adulthood. Yes, there is a correlation between these outcomes and single parenthood, but for obvious economic reasons.

Economic reasons that dictate that the ideal set up is a TWO parent houshold! The answer's staring you in the face!  But none so blind, and all that...