Get a civil typing finger on that hand

Care to take a look at what I saw in passing:

Firstly, on topic ... well yes ... M25 bubble, higher income, property value, however they do it ... and yet that's a vast hike, innit?  And seems he was not alone.

So I looked ay my own bank a/c and saw that they had indeed hiked it to a massive degree, nothing like Toby Young's though. "They" in this case were not BG, which I had an unfortunate experience with a decade ago when they claimed me as a customer and double billed me with along with my own provider.

That was when I really saw their rapacious, dog-eat-dog world, all for maximising prophet (sic) and thus ... the bonuses of the high ups and brownie points with the real locusts above.

There's another aspect to look at ... seemingly off topic but I'd suggest indicative all the same ... the overfamiliarity with the customer. When phoning these megalithic companies, it's all "Mr. Higham" and "you do understand, sir" but when the creeps are harassing you to get, for example, a "smart" meter, some locust drops into "James" right off the bat, not so much as a by-your-leave.

That is not English in the trad sense ... it's obviously a foreign form of approach which the young (preBoomer) and also the Woke corporate world have happily adopted.

And behind it is an attitude that he/she is the Big Admin deciding, like a Roman emperor, what my fate shall be and I, the mere pleb, should be honoured for him even considering me, the humble cockroach.

Now look ... there's a time and place for familiarity and netiquette says that a cat may look at a king ... it is the great leveller, which I for one am fine with.  Even detractors are fine using first name terms ... you do it, I do it.

Not though in a provider-client relationship, and not with disdainful overtones towards someone attempting to get in the way of their Grand Plan, a miniscule gnat to be swished away.

And what's more, the overtones of one of these, clearly an ignoramus not brought up in the social arts, assuming the high and mighty ... on that salary, one can see why ... well it meets a brick wall in my case. Either it gets a civil typing finger onto its hand or I ignore it and then take my own measures ... obliquely.

I'd also suggest you do too ... do not accept disrespectful little toerags, whoever they are ... because it simply fuels their clown world disdain.

Last observation ... to be fair to the utilities companies ... having broken millions, financially, they then start offering monetary incentives which you'll get if you're a good boy and play ball but not if you fail to "work with them" ... the power shifts from customer to munificent provider ... in their eyes.

Why the victims cave and comply

Various pundits, with the data now in the public sphere, are stunned why the vaxx, lockdown and mask victims are not crying out en masse, why the perps STILL have the gall to double down. 

Our reader Andy saw this … it’s one man’s possible explanation:

Torquaymada:

https://merylnass.substack.com/p/dr-sucharit-bhakdis-warning-to-the

PD at NO:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/extinction-event-hitting-corporate-media

But It Doesn't Really "Apply To All Styles And Genres Of Music", Does It?

Last October, days before what would have been his biggest home town show yet, the chart-topping drill rapper Digga D posted a statement online. “I’m gutted to announce that my Brixton Academy show next week has been rescheduled for reasons beyond my control,” he wrote. “Without going into too much detail, you can probably guess why this might have happened.”

The detail that Digga omitted was that the Metropolitan police had spent the preceding weeks putting pressure on the venue – sponsored by O2 and operated by the Academy Music Group (AMG) – to pull the plug on the show.

And why? Well, Reader, I think we all know, don't we? 

The Met’s interest in Digga D, AKA Rhys Herbert, is well documented: in 2020, the Bafta-winning documentary Defending Digga D depicted his efforts to pursue a music career under the terms of a uniquely restrictive criminal behaviour order (CBO), which he is still under.

And still breaking...some people just can't learn, can they? 

The Met – which was found last month by an independent investigation, once again, to be institutionally racist – has an established history of interfering with Black music events in London.

We know, don't we, Reader, as on my blog it's been covered before.  

A central London nightclub owner who also asked to remain anonymous corroborated this experience. “It’s 696 by another name. It’s not a predesigned form, it’s a risk assessment that I have to provide to them. But both parties know exactly what I have to include, which is to state what style of music is playing. And both parties know that if that style of music is one that is preferred by people of colour, then the police will immediately say something like ‘whilst we would never tell you what events to put on, we regard this as high-risk and if anything should happen we will review your licence.’ Which is essentially them saying ‘we will close you down’.”

Good! A bit of pre-emptive action is to be welcomed. 

The Met said this approach “applies to all styles and genres of music”.

Heh! Yes, I'm sure it does. But it's not applied to all styles and genres, and we all know why... 

Digga is forbidden from rapping about certain topics and has to submit lyrics to the Met before releasing new tracks and videos. He was recalled to prison in 2019 for a breach of his CBO – inside, a stabbing left him partially sighted – and again in 2020 after pleading guilty to his role in a central London brawl where machetes were wielded.

That's why! 

Shapes of things to come

PD at our place across the way points to another alarming trend:

I have just tried to access Brian Cates (Rise of the New Media) on Telegram (t.me/s/riseofthenewmedia) and been redirected to a French gubermint website. Site blocked because Telegram might contain porn. I tried another one We The Media (t.me/s/wethemedia) with the same response. 

Also Chris Paul (t.me/s/imyourmoderator). Same response. So that is how they're playing the censorship narrative. Suddenly (since this morning) independent/alt news is now classed as "porn".

"You have been redirected to this page of the Ministry of the Interior website because you attempted to connect to a site containing images of child pornography.

For what ?

- To protect the dignity of the victims of the abuse visible in these images.
- To protect Internet users, especially the youngest, so that they are not confronted with shocking images.
- So that people who try to view these images can become aware of the seriousness of their attraction.
- To fight against sites that sell these images."

I have never encountered any such porn on any of the alt media accounts on Telegram nor was I aware that Telegram sells images. I am grateful to the censors for their protection of little moi. Rumble inaccessible here and now Telegram. Where next?

JH:  All right, the Soviet handbook comes in mighty handy, doesn't it, David Bell, Geoff Mulgan and Noah Voson?

Associate truthtelling with a personal crime which would nauseate the middle of society, make it the same in practice, follow up with legislation to define it as such.

In short, the next step is entering all pundits, bloggers and vloggers on the vague sex offenders register, along with grooming gangs and the like, and you have criminalised dissent.

Oh, and any of you reading this here now have just committed a crime, should they need to haul you in over some other issue at a later stage.

Late note from PD:

Anonyme Citoyen also blocked but can be found on twitter @anonymecitoyen

You Know What Else Is 'Not Proven', Sandy?

Critics of the not proven verdict, which dates from the 17th century, say it creates confusion for jurors and can stigmatise people amid limited public understanding it is an acquittal.

It's that you have the slightest clue about what you're doing.  

In the biggest shake-up of the legal system for decades, the centuries-old third option for jurors will be axed in a bid to increase Scotland's low rape conviction rate.

Is that a goal worth pursuing? Maybe. But it certainly isn't a goal worth overturning centuries of law for, as the lawyers themselves point out to her, not that she's listening: 

As part of the changes, victims will have their own 'tsar' to stand up for their rights – and a specialist sex crimes court will be set up.

Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, said: 'There is a huge amount of research and evidence to suggest that these steps will not only make engaging with the justice system easier for survivors but lead to more justice being done.'

Justice for whom, exactly, Sandy? 

Murray Etherington, president of the Law Society of Scotland, backed by the Faculty of Advocates, criticised the proposed pilot scheme to allow judges to try people for rape – which carries a possible life sentence – without juries.

He said: 'Juries act as an essential and effective safeguard against the potential for unconscious biases to unfairly influence trial outcomes. Even on a pilot basis, judge-only trials will put that fundamental right in jeopardy, with no discernible benefits.'

And that's not all they have to be wary of in this bill: 

The Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, will also change the size of criminal juries from 15 to 12, with eight guilty verdicts enough to secure a conviction – compared to a minimum of ten in England, where unanimous decisions are strongly encouraged.

Once again, Scotland's leading the race to the bottom... 

Ms Brindley said she has 'no doubt that guilty men are walking free'.

Never heard of Blackstone's Ratio have you, Sandy? 

Disinformation officers

 Predictable:

Is it set up to try to track down this sort of thing?

Or this?

VE Day, 1945

(Photo RBL)

Aw, Iain, Don't Cry Because You Can't Waste Taxpayer Cash...

New Government buildings are being laid out on the assumption they will only ever be half-full, as many civil servants are still working from home. Rules for office design have been quietly changed because 'average attendance will be lower' as a result of the new working practices.

Hurrah! Think of the taxpayer money saved! 

Last night former Cabinet minister Sir Iain Duncan Smith said: 'Ministers have lost control.

'Staff should turn up to work in the places they were meant to occupy. It seems like a poor service and could damage people's lives.'

Oh. Silly me, wasting it is, after all, what MPs are for, isn't it? 

John Lewis is looking to slash the size of its London office by half as thousands of its staff now work from home. The John Lewis Partnership, which also owns Waitrose, has hired property experts Tuckerman to find new offices 'half' the size of its current 220,000sq ft headquarters in Victoria, London.

'Like many businesses, we don't need as much space now we have a blended approach to working in offices, home and out in the business.

'As our requirements for office space reduce, we also expect to reduce our occupancy costs.'

Sensible. But then, it's their money, and not somone else's... 

Did Charles depart from or add to his mother’s oath?

Archbishop: "Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?"

Queen: "I am willing."

The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen: I will.

Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Archbishop:  Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen: All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

"The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God."

Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.

The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.

- - - - - - - - - - -

The Right Reverend Dr Iain Greenshields, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, receives the Bible from the Dean of Westminster and presents it to The King, saying 

Sir, to keep you ever mindful of the law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes, receive this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords. Here is Wisdom; this is the royal Law; these are the lively Oracles of God.

The Moderator receives the Bible and places it before The King. The King stands and the Archbishop says: 

Our Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law.

Are you willing to take the Oath?

The King replies 

I am willing.

The King places his hand on the Bible, and the Archbishop administers the Oath 

Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

The King replies 

I solemnly promise so to do.

The Archbishop says 

Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

The King replies 

I will.

The King kneels at the Chair of Estate. The Archbishop says 

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

The King replies 

All this I promise to do.

The King places his hand on the Bible and says 

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

The King kisses the Bible. The Archbishop says

Your Majesty, are you willing to make, subscribe, and declare to the statutory Accession Declaration Oath?

The King replies

I am willing.

I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.

The King signs copies of the Oaths, presented by the Lord Chamberlain, whilst the choir sings 

Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help; that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

William Byrd (c 1540–1623) The Book of Common Prayer 1549 

The King kneels before the Altar and says

God of compassion and mercy whose Son was sent not to be served but to serve, give grace that I may find in thy service perfect freedom and in that freedom knowledge of thy truth. Grant that I may be a blessing to all thy children, of every faith and belief, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The King returns to the Chair of Estate and sits.

- - - - - - - - - - - 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1444088/queen-elizabeth-ii-coronation-oath-in-full-what-did-queen-promise-evg

https://www.countrylife.co.uk/coronation/the-full-text-of-the-coronation-oaths-of-king-charles-iii-255228

These both were provided by reader Phantom Digger, thanking him, and I myself have a question in two parts:

a.  How can we be sure that nothing was omitted or added to either oath itself?

b.  If these were accurate in every detail, nothing omitted, the parts of the ceremony before and after the text reprinted above having no departures nor insertions of any kind which would distinguish it from Queen Elizabeth II’s, then where is the issue of the changed wording? 

Asked not in the spirit of trying to prove there was none, nor that it did depart or add … the question is asked in a neutral way. 

What will this weekend bring?

The Right Honorable and Inimitable Julia has left it blank in the posts queue inside OoL just now … we normally discuss ahead of time how we’ll approach a festivity or commemoration and generally we manage to find an OoL position.

Perhaps the best approach is that we can show our view on issues such as the justice system, the invasion, other topics, because we’re all pretty much at one on those. Alas, not so on the coronary weekend and I addressed this at the N.O. personal space in a midnight post.

See, the issue is that there really are a goodly number right into today … the pageantry, the pomp and circumstance … a friend of mine and her mother have all the bunting up and the patriotic teapots out … and I say fine, that’s patriotic and festive and well done. Because after all, are we not for our country and the freedom it once embraced?

Those fine folk … and they are fine, largely apolitical … I’d love to have a cuppa or pint and a natter with. 

What they have not the slightest clue about though is that certain personages not loved by the ordinary people of the land are running the land … hence the subject matter of our blogs.

The patriotic teapot people, bless ’em, then gaze over at us who are not clapping for Chas and interpret that as unpatriotic, whereas we’re very much patriots … for our sceptred isle, for our people, for our flora and fauna … just not for the clowns attempting to do the people down.

And what makes it difficult for the likes of me is that I was very much into Kate’s and Wills’s wedding, plus Pippa’s posterior, I was posting in support of a hereditary Lords, strange as it might seem … before I woke up. But I’ll be damned if I’ll support this clown’s “green” destruction and his attempt to stamp out the faith.  Let alone the Diana issue.

It’s a sad split down the middle of the country and I confess I don’t even know Julia’s stance … nor Grandpa’s.  All I’ll say is that those for whom this is the biggest thing since 1953 … fine, have a spiffing weekend, you all, and as AKH put it at his place:

Casually patriotic boozing with friends perhaps.

Have a lovely weekend!