Piddington to secede from the UK?

Piddington, Oxfordshire, has around 400 residents. It’s about to have 1600, the extra male, fighting age, from other countries … their dregs. The residents are not having it.

All right. My question of course is … who came up with this brilliant strategy to destroy a community overnight? And why? What were they paid to plan that? Was the mood civicmindedness or having a good chuckle at how they’d stiffed the British people yet again? And if the latter, keep that attitude firmly in your mind.

Why would these creeps even be like this? Why are they in any decisionmaking position anyway? Why is the system so broken that it can allow such things? And I’m sure many other questions follow on from that.

Leopards Don't Change Their Spots

Speedboat killer Jack Shepherd has been charged with attacking his new girlfriend after being released from prison. The 38-year-old is facing new counts of intentional suffocation, controlling and coercive behaviour, and criminal damage. He is also charged with two counts of ABH, according to documents released by the Parole Board.

And just who would risk an association with this man? Some young thing with no life experience perhaps? 

His alleged victim is a woman in her 50s, who was said to be living in the same building as Shepherd when he was released from prison in 2024.

🤷‍♀️ 

Details of his recall to prison have only now come to light. According to the Parole Board documents, Shepherd and his new victim, known only as 'Ms X' began a relationship.

Some women just like to live dangerously, it seems. Or maybe there were no bloodsport breed dogs waiting to be adopted? 

Awash in a sea of anomalous snippets

If you look at the sea of voting normies out there, so easily gulled with the MSM as their main source, with various forms of entertainment as distractions, their welcome relief, let alone the simple worry in the face of a govt looking for any pretext at all to tax or steal them to oblivion … in any western country …

... good normies whose idea of cutting edge political “discussion” is BBCQT or C4 … then I’m not trying in any way to be a smarta**e because I’ve been messing up big time myself in the field of ladies … but perhaps I’m just one of a growing band of observers.

And as observers on soc-med, we get to know … we get to work out the good ones such as Charlotte Gill or Brian Cates now and then. So we see snippets, the topic of this post, moreso than a journo-prepared pap piece (the way we're meant to think embedded in the subtext).

In short, we are seeing anomalies whoosh past us on our timelines and there’s just too much of it to handle in one go.

Take, for example, Mike Lindell, of pillow fame … great supporter of the Donald pre-election … one of the good guys, no?

That’s as it should be … in a functioning society. But we’re not in a functioning society … we’re under a bunch of paid, psycho clowns who obey the money.

Was your first question, “Who’s Mike Lindell?” And why would that be your first question? Is it because you’re focussed almost entirely on Brit news or World Cup or food shopping or your workplace or light relief?

So somewhere along the line, we start picking up on snippets, often random, esp. on X, the premier platform in 2026, hence the govt wants it banned from the country. Along comes Natalie Fleet who’s just resigned … (heard of her ? look her up) … her job being to restrict what you can view.

Whoops, a snippet flew by … Viktor Orban starting a Magyar resistance against this Peter Magyar, the Hungarian version of controlled opposition like Farage who has everyone gulled on this “don’t split the vote” pap … welcome Burnham, all blame Lowe.

And that’s where we are. Long ago, I was often quoting Perry Mason from one of those books, speaking to a Sgt Holcombe on the stand. Mason asked what happens when you sometimes see pieces of evidence which don’t accord with the general trend of the “evidence”? Awkward snippets in other words.

And Holcombe said: “You ignore em.”

How many of people come to dissident soc-med, only to bring their MSM habits with them? That is … find a comfortable show which seems to say all the right things, e.g. Mike Graham … and get one’s reality from that limited look?

Instead of actually investigating and building up impossible vaults of snippets, then losing them over time?

Let’s face it … we here do the best we can on these blogs to get issues to readers … multi-author is better … but the very best require a news organisation with a fleet of reporters which none of us can afford in either time or money … either energy or inclination. How many of us are, essentially, lazy bstds, easily jaded or bored?

Have a wunnerful Thursday, good readers all.

The Madness Of The Greens...

Bristol has been formally declared a “city of harm reduction”, with local politicians pledging...

Better NHS services? The deportation of foreign criminals? 

...to focus on helping and treating users of illegal drugs rather than punishing them.

*sigh* 

Green councillors, who lead the city council, said the declaration was a clear signal that public health rather than criminal justice solutions were needed to tackle the UK’s growing drugs crisis.

I might have known. Green politicians! Always reliably on the wrong side of any discussion! 

They hope the declaration will put pressure on the Labour government to rethink drug policies and, specifically, lead to a legal drug-consumption facility being set up in the city.

Withpolicing in the sorry state it is at the moment, I wonder why they need it? 

The Bristol Green councillor Cara Lavan, who lost her partner, Jake Coe, 37, to drug overdose poisoning, said it felt like an important moment.

Ah. Hard cases make bad law. 

Lavan said Coe had been in recovery for five years but when he relapsed was able to buy heroin and crack within half an hour, despite living in a new place where he did not know dealers. “The prohibition didn’t stop him getting hold of it.”

The couple had a baby and he was about to qualify as an arts psychotherapist.

 So, nothing of value was lost.

Lavan said: “We were unable to get the help we needed because the drugs he was using were illicit and there was the constant threat he would be arrested and criminalised. He desperately wanted to be drug free, but he just wasn’t able to cope and he couldn’t get support.

Bristol Green councillors want the city to be allowed to open a drug-consumption facility, as has happened in Glasgow. Lavan said: “It’s not encouraging people to use drugs, but it’s about making sure that if they are going to use drugs, they’re not being stigmatised and criminalised.”

How do the 'new Greens' feel abou that?  

Outside the meeting, a Green councillor, Abdul Malik, said that, as a mosque leader, his faith was clear that intoxicants were harmful and should be avoided.

 Quite, so will he quit in protest?

He said: “Nothing in this motion changes that. This is not about encouraging drug use or normalising addiction. It is about recognising a simple truth: after 55 years, we cannot honestly say prohibition on its own has solved this problem and we have a responsibility to look at what the evidence tells us does work. 

“If this motion helps one more person into treatment, prevents one more overdose, reduces crime on our streets and spares one more family from unimaginable loss, then it is worth doing.”

Green ideology - It's such a powerful drug evef moslims can'r resist. Just say 'No' kids! 

Of Maggie and the Falkland Islands

… from the perspective of an American lady who recalls the time. We have writers, regular and occasional, over at Unherdables. One is Toodles, from southern Alabama, and that’s what makes these recollections so different on Maggie Thatcher and the Falkland Islands. Without any further ado:

James, starting with your second post first. 

1. Maggie, Margaret Thatcher?  I know her. I have met her. She gave me a lovely porcelain clay tea pot. The lid was fashioned into a magnolia flower and leaves and stem. Sounds tacky but wasn’t. I used it for years. 

She came to our town on a speaking tour sometime in the 1990’s. There was a dinner and a speech, as is the fashion of a visiting dignitary. It was in the smaller ballroom in which there were probably no more than a hundred guests.  There was limited seating. I cannot recall just why we were there, well except too see her.  I will ask Cuddles who was sponsoring the shindig. I am sure we paid, but not sure if we just reserved or if we were invited. 

She was a delight. She made a great speech. Personable and charming, seems to have been intelligent, smart and sharp. Not everyone who is smart is sharp. She spoke of her friendship and working relationship  with Ronnie R . She showed him much respect … almost wistful at times talking about different conversations and joint plans, so on. She appreciated his sense of humour. 

I recall she had lovely skin.  I’ve forgotten the colour of her outfit. I actually  recalled it for a long time but that section of the brain chamber has been shut off.  Her hair was that strawberry-ish soft red. And it was slightly out of style which was nonetheless attractive on her and I thought, “Good, the former PM wasn’t trendy but instead classic.” 

Who knows if it is all a sham and if  it was part of the Truman Show put on just for us🤷‍♀️.  At the time we so enjoyed meeting her and listening to her speak about many things and guess what? She definitely spoke about the F. Islands.

2. Speaking of that, I heard about that ‘incident’ in the early summer of 1982. June maybe, well unless it was late May. It was fitted in the cusp of  either two months. 

We were en route to the Great  Smoky Mountains … went with friends. On the day the war started we  were also attending the Unofficial World’ s Fair in Knoxville TN.  We had been married some months. That is why I recall the F Island time line as to when it started. We had never heard of the F I’s. We were very nervous for you countrymen.  It was all over the radio on our long ride up and over to the mts! 

How ‘bout those Falkland Islands … they became a tagline for all of us. We had two cars between us. Back then the cars were spacious and nice for traveling. None of us young adults or teens of course had children yet.

So yes, to the Falkland Islands, we say. Interesting about the political aspect. Wow. We were actually pulling for Spain in the soccer. Argentina  cheaters?  Pro sports are wicked and now is our college sports.

We Already Know What Would 'Better Protect Children'...

..and it's responsible parenting.

A mother suing TikTok over her teenage son's death said a decision to hold a landmark new inquest would help better protect children.

Oh? 

Jools Sweeney, a 14-year-old from Gloucestershire, died in April 2022 and his parents believe social media played a role in his death – pointing to an 'online challenge gone wrong'. There are fears he may have been a victim of attempted 'sextortion', too.

The first inquest wasn't so very wrong, but it clearly didn't exonerate the negligent parents enough: 

The fresh ruling overturned an inquiry held four years ago, which only lasted 23 minutes and heard no oral evidence. Jools's mother, Ellen Roome, challenged the narrative conclusion recorded in 2022, taking legal action against the senior coroner for Gloucestershire.

Her lawyers told a hearing on Thursday that a 'number of lines of inquiry' had not been pursued. And, in the High Court in London, Lord Justice Warby and Ms Justice Heather Williams on Thursday quashed the original conclusion and ordered the inquest be reopened.

And so we're off to the races, and the only people to benefit from this are the lawyers. Oh, and the government, which relishes any excuse to crack down on social media, of course. 

Ms Roome said: 'Every bereaved family deserves to know that every possible avenue, including a child's digital life, has been properly investigated. We hope this is a turning point, not only in finding the truth about Jools, but in making the online world safer for every child. 

'Our greatest hope is that one day no family has to walk this path. No parent should ever have to bury their child because dangerous content was allowed to reach them.'

Who allowed it to reach him, then, if not you? A 14 year old doesn't buy a phone without help from his parents, and most social media has age-restrictions and warning for use, which you as a parent should have known.  

Thursday's ruling came as Ofcom announced an investigation into the social media platform over potential failures in stopping children accessing harmful content. The watchdog has questioned whether the social media giant's age checks are fit for purpose.

Not if it's ignored by the very people now clamouring for Big Daddy Governmement to step in and parent their children for them, no. 

A TikTok spokesman said: 'We are confident that we meet our Online Safety Act obligations and will work with Ofcom to demonstrate this.'

I'm confident they will too, and I'm also conifent it won't make a blind bit of difference. 

The egregious licence fee

This is from the TPA's newsletter today:

The TaxPayers’ Alliance calling out the licence fee is hardly breaking news. It’s been six years since we launched our Axe the Tax campaign, calling for the outdated licence fee to be abolished. While the telly tax remains, Aunty’s annual report released this week had some eye-opening figures. 

Half a million fewer people shelled out for a tv licence last year, meaning the number of people paying for the Beeb is now at its lowest level since 1999. Despite the fall in licence fee payers, the BBC still raked in a whopping £3.88 billion from it, up £36 million on the previous year, thanks to the licence now costing £180 a year.

This perhaps explains why they felt able to pay yet more enormous salaries to their so-called ‘top talent’. While households were switching off from our scandal-hit state broadcaster, BBC stars will have been popping the champagne corks. Scott Mills, the former Radio 2 host who was dismissed earlier this year, topped the table taking home between £745,000 and £749,999. Greg Mills, another DJ came in second getting between £440,000 and £444,999, while Stephen Nolan, a presenter on Northern Irish radio rounded out the top three with between £425,000 and £429,999. Naturally John O’Connell was more than happy to speak up for hard working Brits, telling the Telegraph: “Failing public trust, repeated scandals and six-figure salaries for star presenters make it harder than ever to justify this outdated and hated TV tax.”

To make matters worse, rather than face up to the fact people are switching off the BBC due to bias or poor content, there are now calls to force people using streaming services to cough up for the licence fee too. John was bang on when he told Mail readers “Forcing streaming service subscribers to pay the licence fee would be an outrageous expansion of an already deeply unpopular tax” while telling the Sun it was “one of the most bonkers ideas ever concocted.”

The inexorable ratchetting of Digital ID

... any which way, without end.

Again, on Sunday … a news reference is what we’re looking for in soc-med, setting straight the legacy truth-creativity lot … but after three or four references have been read by you, you start to see a bigger picture emerging.

I could have run just the first in three parts, but once the Burnham piece came along, the westwide plan became clearer. This first is the last of a three parter on the Canadian situation (all three go up at UHC a bit later):

Against that, we can put Burnham’s “sort of promise” to kill Digital ID … do you, personally, trust that, given the global pressure by Them?

Two comments from me on Monty Toms … one of the youthful wing of Restore (male side) … these guys are the powerful future of Britain, vitally important for the country henceforth … but oh so young! So trusting.

At the same time, the girl Lydia (youthful wing, female, rape gang survivor in the inquiry report) … she “came out” and took her first role.

Wham! In came the Lowles gang, other parties … suddenly The Times had doxxed her. Get that … the bleeding Times! Doxxing a girl victim (genuine victim), just as she grows out of the horror and into the limelight. Report is over at UHC at about 0800.

Of sustained assault on the little people, plus the nature of friendship

There’s an auspicious date. It might have been July 8th (why … I’ve no idea) and on or around that date, a few attacks were dropped … not just on “our type” on soc-med but on me personally … most interesting. Julia at Orphans has seen it happening as well, thank goodness I say.

Part of that is the blog NOWP which has started playing games with our contributors/droppers at the posting level. That is … it’s trying to make the experience trying. Now I already have this at Orphans, which prevents me from posting screenshots and sometimes even refuses to let me post under my account name. But there, Julia can step in to help, thank goodness.

We in this line of political “work” on soc-med are no strangers to the old conspiracy versus coincidence conundrum and this one’s a real doozie, to coin an Americanism. Oh dear, how sad, let’s move on. I’ve just posted this at NOWP in reply to our “senior member” who’s just been mucked around by the platform.

DAD, IYE, Steve, our most regular … we are almost certainly being hit. I say this from the overview of also being hit on other fronts, even from past blogging … at the same time. As IYE might ask … coinky dink?

In our line of work, we’d say no, not entirely. We’d say we’re being silenced.

Now, in practical terms, how to get our patron’s work up for people to see? I might suggest just email it to me but that might also be subject to the censors.

There is another way and that is to give a page url and you can drop it there. I can even change that page from time to time, putting a new url. You would post at that page, it is not visible to readers, my job is then copy and paste whole … first here or if that fails, then just make that page visible at HQ for readers.

In fact, let’s try that now. Here’s a page:

|https://unherdablecats.com/july-18/

Procedure, in this case for DAD and or IYE, is … go there, drop it in comments. You know I do not alter your text … at times I add a “JH”. That way, your work is not lost but not only that … it is directed in a few other directions as well for safekeeping.

Why not just do that from inception? Partly as we’ve had different inception dates for different blogs but also to avoid all the eggs in the one basket.

Anyway, see how you go and again ta muchly for your perseverance.

We are also under attack at Orphans. To be specific, a crazy nutter is trying to reopen a fight I had in 2007 … yes, that is no BS … but is also trying to drag Julia into it and that is unconscionable. However, Julia is no one’s fool, so she does what she does.

Any surprise at any of this? Not really … only that I’m not exactly a major player on the soc-med stage and that’s been intentional (traffic, empires … what are they?). I’m thinking that the intention of our fabian masters and mistresses is to suppress ALL dissent, ALL networking by the antiWokeLeft, antiGloboPsycho, to fit in with the Beloved New World order of Replacement and human misery.

Anyway, there’ll be a regular political post at Orphans, if I’m allowed, a bit later today, maybe even tonight or tomorrow morning. Y’all have a wunnerful weekend now, y’hear!

Technology Working For Us? Who Could Disagree?

Facewatch, a facial recognition system used by more than 100 businesses including Sainsbury’s, B&M and Spar to monitor thieves, said it was launching a UK-first feature to “alert police instantly when the most serious offenders trigger a live facial recognition match”.Facewatch’s chief executive, Nick Fisher, said the “unique technical development” would be launched in autumn and would warn police in an average of four seconds when the “worst offenders” were flagged on its network.

Amazing! Who could object? Oh. of course... 

Civil liberties groups have voiced alarm at the development, saying it had “shot on far ahead of the regulation” and was “upending” the way retail crime was dealt with.

Well, it needs upending, doesn't it?  

Charlie Whelton, the policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, said...“It’s not against the law to walk into a shop even if you’ve committed crimes in the past,” he said. “The idea of calling the police on somebody who hasn’t committed a crime, but there’s a concern they might, is really upending the way we do things. And of course, it’s not infallible. These systems do make mistakes, and it’s very hard to argue with that when it happens to you.”

Evidence suggests black and Asian people are more likely to be incorrectly identified than white people.

Aha! This is the reason for the concern, clearly. 

Sarah Lasoye, the pre-crime programme manager at Open Rights Group, said the technology was “entrenching a climate of surveillance across public life”.

Newsflash, Sarah, we already have that, with the proliferation of video doorbells and smartphones. People are already surveilling themselves.

“Fundamentally, it’s an infringement of data and privacy rights,” she said. “People’s faces being scanned without consent and being added to lists is worrying enough, but the speed which Facewatch technology now makes it possible for someone to encounter the police force in the middle of their daily shop is a really dangerous escalation.”

Only if they are a known criminal, and surely you wouldn't want them to go free? Oh, but maybe you would, since you've drunk the socialist Kool-Aid?

She said the technology failed to address the social and economic root causes of shoplifting and “only served to further criminalise working-class communities”.

The working class aren't the demographic doing the shoplifting!