California 2.0 Here We Come!

The cost of living crisis will trigger an increase in crime and officers should use their “discretion” when deciding whether to prosecute people who steal in order to eat, the new chief inspector of constabulary has said.

Well, great! We haven't got the climate of California, but we'll soon have their rather 'interesting' approach to retail:

When asked how policing could avoid being seen as the arm of an uncaring state, he said forces across England and Wales were skilled in dealing with the tensions and dynamics of their communities.

Mainly by giving up, turning a blind eye and running away, or in extreme cases, surrendering. 

Cooke said he was not advocating an amnesty for people who commit crimes of poverty, nor “giving a carte blanche for people to go out shoplifting”.

Yes, you absolutely are.  

H/T: i.r.jackson via email

Third world fun and other matters

Isn't it curious how so many third world afflictions are now appearing in this country?  Can't for a second think why, he lies to himself and adds a link:

https://underdogsbiteupwards.wordpress.com/2022/05/21/the-strangest-epidemic/

Meanwhile, consider these from our correspondent Evets:

Ronna McDaniel Still Not Up for the Job – Does Not Take Election Integrity Seriously – Refuses to Mention “2000 Mules” on FOX News

After Spending Three Years and Millions of Dollars, How Did Mueller and Weissmann Not Figure Out Hillary Created the Russia Hoax?

Mind you, there are questions about the Hofts too and how their sources are so good, as with the other big players on the stage.

Some Are, Undoubtedly, But Not The Ones That Are Always In The Papers, Colin...

Colin Macfarlane, the director of Stonewall Scotland, told members of the Scottish parliament’s equalities, human rights and civil justice committee: “There has been a whipping up of a moral panic and an othering of trans people in the public discourse. Trans people are not an ideology – trans people are our friends, our family and our colleagues.”

My friends, family and colleagues don't do this sort of thing:

Of course, the police did nothing...well, no, not quite, they did threaten the victim that she could be arrested for breach of the peace for being attacked. Which is par for the course these days, isn't it?

Macfarlane told the committee the reforms would have no impact on the Equality Act – which affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, gender reassignment and other characteristics. However, later in the session EHRC representatives said further examination was required of the implications of recent court cases on evolving legal concepts of sex, for example.

"Not so fast!" says the EHRC at last. "Your side keeps losing, so maybe we need to look at why..." 

But Macfarlane said he wanted to highlight “this presentation of trans people and trans women in particular as a threat”, stating it was “deeply unfortunate … that there has been misinformation, some of it deliberate, around what the provisions of this bill will mean for the impact of women and girls”.

We know what it means. That's the problem.  

House of Crims?

Churchmouse is running this:

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 — St Andrew’s Day — the Opposition Day debate was all about Boris. The Downing Street parties had just come to light: ‘Conduct of the Right Hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip’.

As expected, Labour and the other opposition parties painted themselves whiter than white, including Annelise Dodds MP, who led the debate. She said, in part:

The current Prime Minister is, unfortunately, falling short, the Conservative Government are failing to get a grip, and working people are paying the price.

Anderson intervened:

The Hon. Lady talks about honesty and integrity. Could she please confirm how many Labour MPs have ended up in the nick over the past 10 years?

Answer is seven.  Who was that one with the ankle braclet?  But there was a reply in comments after the tweet:

That just tells us Tories are good at avoiding prison ….. except Lord Archer, Jonathan Aitkin.

Think there were some others as well, no?  Bercow and someone whose wife took the blame?  I lose track of these crims in parlmt.

This Never Occurred To Them Before The Coroner Suggested It..?

'Where there is disclosure that a service user is in possession of an offensive weapon this must be documented; there must be a documented discussion as to the response; the information must be passed to the police; any action taken by the trust and/or the police to be documented.'

For 'service user' read 'potentially dangerous mental patient'...

In his Prevention of Future Deaths report Mr Middleton wrote: 'During the course of that meeting the perpetrator disclosed that he was in possession of a knife, that he was sleeping rough and he needed the knife for his own protection.

'The members of the Dorset Forensic (Mental Health) Team did not probe as to where the perpetrator was sleeping.' He added the fact that he said he was carrying a knife was not probed further by the forensic social worker, who work with offenders with mental health problems.

It was also not recorded at the time in his records and not raised during a Care Programme Meeting - which monitors the package of care people with mental health problems receive - held the day following the disclosure.

Did anyone bother to do their job properly? 

Dorset HealthCare said they accepted the coroner's conclusion and will make changes to 'minimise the risk of such a tragedy happening again'.

Only 'minimise' it, because they clearly know they are employing people who aren't up to the job, and probably cvan't get rid of them... 

Detective Inspector Richard Dixey, of MCIT, said in 2017: 'Ryan died as a result of a brutal knife attack by someone he had classed as his friend.

'His death was tragic and needless and I hope the sentence handed down today will assist Ryan's friends and family in some small way as a step towards closure during what has been a terribly traumatic time.'

You don't think the revelation that it was completely avoidable adds to the trauma, then, Richard..? 

Song for the Russian and Ukrainian people

There's straight translation ... there's transliteration, which is a fine thing in the language world:

For example, the Indian name 'দৃষ্টি' is pronounced as Dr̥ṣṭi. Its' transliteration into English is 'Drishti. ' We write it as 'дришти' after its' transliteration into Cyrillic text used in the Russian language. Here, the syllables or sounds of the words and letters remain the same. [4 Oct 2019]

... and then there's 'Highamisation' in which I take the transliteration and make it more closely approximate a non-languages person's usual English, although this is, admittedly, pushing it with Geordies and the West Country.

Of course, it's also relying on my having picked up the 'to be translated' language well enough in the first place.

That long foreword was only to say that there's an expression I keep coming back to over and over ... to my mind best rendered in Russian.  

Looking at Peter's recent post:

https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2022/05/a-totalitarian-onslaught-against.html

Novelist Ian Fleming had his James Bond character opine, "Once is happenstance;  twice is coincidence;  three times is enemy action".  That's a yardstick that's been used by many organizations to assess what's going on in the world ...

... it seems to me to follow ... yes ... you can come to an understanding and this site attempts to help with that ... but in the end ... for what to know?  I mean, end of the day, when all is said and done - for what ultimate result?

A song for Russian and the Ukrainian people

The direct translation of the main line of the song below, according to my Ukro-Russian mate, is 'why know', which is fine but there's also a case in English for leaving it direct, as it better conveys the sense of frustration and despair at knowing something ... and for what?  For what ultimate result?

It's a famous Russian song among the late Soviet youth, who are now our age:

Зачем тебе знать, когда он уйдет, зачем тебе знать, о чем он поет.

Зачем тебе знать то, чего не знает он сам.

Зачем тебе знать, кого он любил, зачем тебе знать, о чем он просил.

Зачем тебе знать то, о чем он молчит.

For what [for you] to know when he departs, why do you need to know about that which he sings.

For what [for you] to know something that he does not know himself.

For what [for you] to know whom he loved, why do you need to know what he was asking for.

For what [for you] to know what he is silent about.

My Highamisation [transliteration of the transliteration, for English natives] is below but first an explanation.  Where I go italic, it's the stressed syllable in the word, where I go bold, it's the end of the rhythmic grouping [you'll hear that as you sing]:

Za-chem teb-yair znat

Kug-da on u/id yot

Za-chem teb-yair znat

A chorm on pie-yot

Za-chem teb-yair znat, tor

Che-vor on zneye-yet on sam [no major stress]

Za-chem teb-yair znat

K-vor on lu-bil

Za-chem teb-yair znat

A chorm on pru-sil

Za-chem teb-yair znat, tor

A chorm on mul-chit. [no major stress]

It's a reference to the young man going off to war and thus the song is as relevant today, particularly as the singer is pro-Russian and yet mindful of the tragic side of it.  But more particularly, it is about the girl left back at home crying over him.  He's saying while those boys are at home and with her, that's the time to be crying over him, caring etc.

There's a very pointed line in one of the verses [shan't translate or transliterate] which is quite cutting ... it says 'already she sees herself in the role of widow'.  Ouch, because that is the entire covenant Mr. Putin has made to those countries.  History will record whether that was largely achieved or not, we're in no position, ourselves, as westerners, yet, to judge.

The chorus and name of the song is:

Поплачь о нем, пока он живой. Люби его, таким, какой он есть.

Поплачь о нем, пока он живой. Люби его, таким, какой он есть.

Cry over him while he is still living, love him for what he is now.

Pa-plach a nyorm, pa'ka on zhi-voi, 

Lub-ee ye-vor ta-kim ka-koi on yest. [no major stress]

The song:

I've Just One Question: How..?

Tourists and second home owners visiting a Cornish sea sideside resort will have to pay to use public toilets while the facilities will remain free for locals.

All eight public toilets in the west Cornish town have traditionally been free to use by everyone, but now the local authority wants to recoup some cash without adversely affecting locals.

Surely the amount of money such a scheme will cost to impliment will outweigh any gains? So...it's not about cost at all, is it? 

The town council said it is still finalising the details of the new contactless toilets but is looking at ways to ensure second home owners or holiday let users cannot use their temporary St Ives address or share any access codes with their Airbnb customers, so public toilets are only genuinely free for locals.

You're going to find a way to stop people sharing access codes, eh? 

Cool! After that, can you get to work on a perpetual motion scheme, or energy from nothing? Or even peace in the Middle East, if you really want a challenge... 

Mrs Dwelly said: 'We will be giving residents a card or code to use on their phone so when they use the public toilets it will be free. Visitors will have to pay and will be able to use their phone or credit card to do so.'

Or will ask/pay a friendly local to swipe their card/phone for them... 

Damascene moment on supposed crazies?

At different times, I, like many of you, have been watching keenly and have unsubscribed from Woke rags such as the openly far left media, e.g. CNN, Guardian, BBC, NYT ... but there are also publications which those of 'the still sanely unreconstructed' are still going to as 'gospel truth', even though we're already way past that point.

Snopes has long been debunked by many sites, also Politico ... Buzz Feed was party to a scandal a few years back which saw it off most people's reading lists.  There was the Chik-fil-A business where the faithful patriots swung their fast food loyalties that way, only for the CEO to go Woke.  

Trouble was, vast numbers never got the message and so there was this fragmentation where half the faithful were still seeing C-f-A as good and the other half had done due diligence and had long dumped the chain.

This is the sad reality of what often turns out to be misplaced loyalties in rapidly changing circumstances.  A recent example was the seemingly innocuous Bored Panda, the travelogue and quirky item site which appears to be apolitical.  When I say no site is apolitical, that there ain't no such thing, those with flawed perceptions due solely to not having done due diligence jump onto that and guess who is the one attacked, rather than those outlets investigated, scrutinised?

And always, those persisting with this 'that's your opinion' bollox, only needed to do due diligence and view corroboration beyond the point of reasonable dispute, e.g. that there are health issues with vaxxes, also e.g. that Biden is not the kindly old Uncle Joe in the least, let alone that son.

False perceptions, vehemently held, from fragmented knowldege bases.  

But it's not just Wokeness at issue, not just misplaced perceptions ... it's also practices and procedures.  Example is when I unsubscribed from Bored Panda and Epoch Times, different sides of the political divide but both refusing to unsubscribe me unless I gave them a list of personal details.  

Then there's the 'would I like the 'security' of two factor authorisation?  Just give us your phone number and bank details.

You don't do anything so foolish of course, so they go quiet for some months, then try again from a different angle meant to make life 'easier'. 

And of course, it hardly makes one popular for calling out things like that. Those who do normally do due diligence have learnt to at least wait to see.  

Many of us have been saying be careful of McCarthy, Pence, Cameron, Clegg, either side of the pond, and have been looked at askance for calling it out.  Anyone can see a Blair or a May for what each is, a Pelosi or a Clinton ... but far harder it is to have picked up, say, Cameron in 2007, yet a look at his Chatham House, Tavistock, Demos, Internet of All Things, Media Matters connections paints a very different picture.

Historical question - why did Kim Philby get away with it for so long? Answer - because he was 'one of us', a regular chap, urbane, a lush, charming.  Well of course he was, wasn't he?

So, Bored Panda whom I've unsubscibed from, still sent me this morning's mailing about Rose McGowan, the American 'actress', with a most surprising journo headline about 'those we all thought were crazy turn out to be right after all'.

Immediate red flags for me, knowing that publication for its deep Wokery and yet, and yet ... here they were running the pic of her shaven head, a la Sinead O'Connor and so, silly me, I went in half hoping that there'd been some epiphany on the writer's part.

What there was was a feminist trope about how right Rose had been on Me Too.  

The complication is this ... and how can I put this?  Were it completely black and white, cut and dried, then fine ... she's crazy.  However cases such as Weinstein undermine this view of her craziness.  I, who have written such posts as Cry Rape, backed by footage and various cases, still must acknowledge she's right on some points and that's where the blurring of lines comes in.  

See, people don't adopt false positions because the catalyst was 100% wrong, they adopt them because the bait was supportable at that time, it really was a demonstrable injustice, thus they're onside with the victim ... therefore, all similar victims' cases are alike.  

But as we saw with that woman Ford on Kavanaugh, she was finally debunked, therefore Kavanaugh must have been guiltless, no?

Not according to accounts I've read, similar to Cliff Richard and Dolphin Square connections.  All that happened there was plod messed up at the critical moment.  Now why would plod suddenly go ultra-incompetent on that one case, just as the West Midlands had?  Enough of such things.

Back to Rose McGowan, have a look at this from Wiki:

In 2015, McGowan criticized [Bruce] Jenner for stating that "the hardest part about being a woman is figuring out what to wear", after Jenner had been named "Woman of the Year" by Glamour. 

McGowan stated, "We are more than deciding what to wear. We are more than the stereotypes foisted upon us by people like you. You're a woman now? Well fucking learn that we have had a VERY different experience than your life of male privilege."   

In response to accusations of transphobia, McGowan stated, "Let me take this moment to point out that I am not, nor will I ever be, transphobic. The idea is laughable. Disliking something a trans person has said is no different than disliking something a man has said or that a woman has said. Being trans doesn't make one immune from criticism."

I actually agree with her on working out what to wear, far more of an issue for her, as my own choices are more limited and easier to make.  My own gf in days of yore was almost traumatised by choice and if it was a bad hair day, she wasn't going out. Crazy?  Maybe in many ways but not on that point ... that is very real to a woman in the spotlight.

McGowan and rape claims?  Remember she was part of Children of God for sometime.  Question there of course was which god?  But it backgrounds her a bit.  

I'd like to think that men, basically of good will, might even sympathise with a lady, were it not for the countless cases of being taken to the cleaners ourselves by unscrupulous females and observing the monstrous regiment of harpies and their 'refugees welcome' signs, welcoming boat people who've recently been cheering on gays being thrown off roofs and women being lashed in public squares.

And so it goes on.  So ... had Bored Panda had an epiphany, a Damascene moment?  Not a bit of it, they were with McGowan that every rape and mistreatment accusation was valid, that the female, by definition, can do no wrong.

Which does not let the feckless gang rape culture boys off the hook, no way ... but let's just say the harpies do themselves no favours in pressing their cases.

"People are telling us that they feel less safe and less welcome in the UK."

Working as intended, then?

The British Red Cross and the Refugee Council, which worked with nearly 44,000 people in the asylum process, warn that they are disappearing from hotels and are reluctant to claim support for fear of deportation, detention and other harsh measures.

Who didn't see this coming? Hopefully the Home Office have read some hunting literature and discovered the term 'flushing from cover'... 

This being the 'Guardian', let's see what sort of sob stories they can find:

Those supported by the Red Cross include:

An Afghan man living in temporary accommodation in the east Midlands who disclosed that he had gone into hiding, fearing that he would be detained and sent to Rwanda. He said that many of his friends were in the same situation and planned to go underground.

So it's not about safety and never was. He and his friends (how is he still in touch with them, I wonder) just target Britain. 

An asylum seeker from Ethiopia based in the West Midlands said that he feels anxious about the passing of the Nationality and Borders Act and disclosed he had left his accommodation out of fear that he will be sent to Rwanda.

What's the 'danger' in Ethiopia? Civil war? Drought? Won't he be at least in his own continent in Rwanda? 

An Afghan asylum seeker also based in the West Midlands who said he feels he is a second-class refugee as he is not eligible for recent schemes designed to support Ukrainians.

Ah. That's because you're not Ukranian. Funny how that works, eh?

Nothing unusual there. Absolutely no-one who anyone with their head screwed on could possibly have any sympathy for. It's amazing how they always manage not to find a genuinely worthwhile 'victim', isn't it?

Anyone for WWIII ?

Vox Day has his ups and downs but on this he's quite right:

https://voxday.net/2022/05/14/why-washington-wants-wwiii/

It’s also because the leading globalists in the USA, along with their funding masters in Big Pharma, have been caught red-handed doing some extremely bad things in Ukraine.

The provisional results of evidence being collected about the work of U.S. bioweapons in Ukraine are simply astonishing. These are the main takeaways.

1. U.S. bioweapon ideologues comprise the leadership of the Democratic Party. By linking with non-governmental biotechnology organizations, using the investment funds of the Clintons, Rockefellers, Soros and Biden, they profited from additional campaign financing – all duly concealed. In parallel, they assembled the legislative basis for financing the bioweapons program directly from the federal budget.
2. COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers Pfizer and Moderna, as well as Merck and Gilead – of Donald “known unknowns” fame, and affiliated with the Pentagon – were directly involved.
3. U.S. specialists tested new drugs in the Ukraine biolabs in circumvention of international safety standards. According to Kirillov, acting this way “Western companies seriously reduce the costs of research programs and gain significant competitive advantages.”

... and so on.  The dismaying thing is how quickly and fully Bodger knuckled under to the Uniparty and Globo narrative on Azov, pouring money and equipment into its puppet govt.  Still, he is American, isn't he?  Whole thing's pure theatre.

Last night's excrescence on the tele too, risibly called 'music' and including Australia of all countries, was yet another small part of globo with its rainbow supporting presenter.  Thngs are going just great in the nearly dead west.