And It’s No Surprise They Allocate Them To More Of Their Own Kind, Is It?

On a cold morning in the heart of London, recently arrived refugees and more established migrants gather in a community centre. Their mission? To decide how £500,000 in funding will be used to support people like them.

Not 'the community', or 'the borough residents'. Just more moochers and fake asylum seekers. Are we mad? 

The initiative is part of the Borough of Sanctuary grants programme, which takes the government’s commitment to devolution a step further, using it to empower migrants and refugees. Islington in north London is one of the boroughs that has been recognised for its work welcoming people seeking refuge, people with experience of seeking asylum and those migrating, and is a participant in the scheme. The council recruited 18 people living in the borough originally from countries including Afghanistan, Ukraine, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran and Sri Lanka to decide how the funds should be allocated.

I wonder if there are similar programmes in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka to assist UK people who have fled the insanity for a new life?  

Having faced the challenges of navigating a new country, language barriers and the complexities of the asylum process, their insights are shaping how the grants are distributed to ensure the funding reaches those who need it most.

'Those who need it most' not including the mugs taxed to the hilt to pay for it all, of course... 

At a time when openness to refugees and migrants is often considered politically toxic, Islington council said it wants those people seeking asylum to feel not only welcome but also empowered to shape their local community. “We’ve got 250,000 residents in Islington. How many know we’re a borough of sanctuary? Probably not that many. I want all 5,000 people who work for Islington council to know we’re a borough of sanctuary,” said Sheila Chapman, an Islington councillor who leads on equalities, communities and inclusion.

And the ratepayers of Islington? Don't they get a say? I mean, they are mostly dim progressives but not all of them.  

Chapman added that welcoming people is not just morally right but also beneficial. “People who have fled war-torn places or persecution are the ones with the bravery, courage and ingenuity to get from there to here. They are the people you want.”

They are the people their country wants too, if it's ever going to break out of the Third World, did you ever think of that?  

Sovereignty

The Holy Grail touched on it:

1215 and Magna Carta was hardly anything to do with us plebs, even educated ones … it was all about the barons.

Cut to today and it’s all about parliament as sovereign, meaning our Beloved Leader in 2025.

Interesting eh? So Chas III jets off to Rome to urge Net Zero but he’s apparently a nothing anymore, now head of the Muslim faith … you see anything from him today about Palm Sunday?  Yep, it’s today in Christendom, such as it is these days.

Well, in the old Nourishing Obscurity, before ggl stole it, there was a series of posts on sovereignty and it seems that way back in the past, someone decided it meant The Crown … notice that there’s no mention anywhere yet, except from Michael Palin, of “the people”.

Right, so this Crown … meaning the monarch?  Well interestingly … no … it means the City, entry to which even the monarch must beg.

And who’s in charge there? Well the Royal thingy of International Affairs for one (meaning Airmiles and Virginia Giuffre perchance?) … or maybe Rothschild as one esteemed reader/commenter has mentioned … I mean, there’s that photo, yes, of Rothschild tapping Chas III on the chest as a headmaster might with a pupil at a boys’ school.

Any mention yet of the people?  Free Born John? Captain Ranty?

🍿🍿🍿

Heatwave

With my heater still on at 0648 BST, soon to go off, there is this:

Oh noze, we’re all going to melt … well at least Julia’s washing might dry out there on the line.

More Huge Fines, Quicker!

And keep them coming until they learn!

Two academics behind a gender-critical film have taken legal action against their union, accusing it of discrimination and harassment after it campaigned on social media to stop the documentary being screened.

The film is part of a continuing debate about gender politics and free speech in UK universities. Last week, the University of Sussex was fined a record £585,000 for free speech breaches after a three-and-a-half-year investigation into the resignation of Prof Kathleen Stock, who was the target of protests over her views on gender identification and transgender rights.

O’Neill and Wayne, who describe themselves as gender critical, believe sex is a matter of biology, that it is impossible for a human to change sex, and that sex is important in a range of different political and social contexts.

Why are these beliefs 'explained' in the article as if they were fringe beliefs that aren't simply common to 99% of the population?  

They also do not subscribe to gender identity theory, “namely the belief that people are born with an internal sense of gender which may or may not correspond to their biological sex”, the documents state.

Again, just like 99% of the UK population.  

They claim these are protected beliefs and their union has discriminated against them contrary to section 57(2) of the Equality Act 2010.

The union is fighting back, of course. They've chosen a side, and it's one that hopefully will cost them dearly. 

The union – or respondent – denies it has discriminated against O’Neill and Wayne. Documents before the tribunal said: “The respondent’s conduct was proportionate and necessary in the interests of advocating the rights of others. Accordingly, the reason for any less favourable treatment was not the claimants’ gender-critical belief or lack of a belief in gender identity theory.” Denying harassment, the union’s defence stated: “The conduct of the respondent was to highlight its commitment to supporting its members that identify as trans or non-binary. The respondent’s conduct was proportionate and in line with its current support for its trans, non-binary and LGBT+ members.”

If this is your line in the sand, then I hope you have large coffers - it's going to be expensive.  

Will the real opposition please stand up?

Both Julia and I have run the gauntlet of the censorious PTB making out we’re somehow doing wrong in some way … similar happened straight after Trophtuos with many pundits immediately labelled “far” this or that.

And now we have the egregious Phillips dropping any inquiry which might just point the finger at Britain’s shame … Farage is going Uniparty as well now and that’s a dilemma for Reform … to work so hard, just to elect another one of Them.

Or we could look across the pond at the autopen issue which does raise the question of any legitimacy at all for the past four years.

See Roobeedoo for that one.

And that does raise the question of legitimacy in the UK:

Yes, you can make the case that with FPTP, a vote of around 20% of the eligble vote is hardly a mandate and you can make the opposite case that them’s the breaks … the gerrymandering, parachuting and FPTP is what was voted for in the referendum by the citizens of this land … producing that massive parliamentary majority, not unlike Boris’s 80 plus … both branches of the Uniparty, esp. since Pigboy Dave’s and subsequent ignoring of the referendum, display an arrogant disdain for any real legitimacy, which has resulted in this from our Steve across the way:

Bitchute threw in the towel today:

‘After careful review and ongoing evaluation of the regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom, we regret to inform you that BitChute will be discontinuing its video sharing service for UK residents.’

https://www.bitchute.com/ukregulation

Is there any real opposition in the UK today?

And What Would Have Been Lost If They Hadn’t Saved Them?

The alarm is sounding in the UK's first drug consumption room. A man in his 30s has overdosed in the "using space" – a room in the Glasgow facility where nurses supervise injections in eight booths.

Obviously, it's working just fine.  

He had only arrived at The Thistle minutes earlier, animated about being searched by police on the Gallowgate. Staff rush to help, bringing him from his seat to a crash mat on the floor. Our film crew is ushered out of the area while an ambulance is called and staff work to save his life.

I've only one question: why? 

Eddie Kearney, a harm reduction worker, tells us that the man had already taken drugs three times that day. "He's using a 'snowball', he's using heroin and cocaine," he explains. "He's been in there two minutes and he's on the floor."

And the title 'harm reduction worker' is a sick joke, isn't it? It supposes that the heroin and cocaine trade - which this initiative is helping to keep going -  causes no harm. 

Less than an hour later, the alarm sounds again, for another man in his 30s. He had been led to reception by workers from a charity, then made his way to the booths to inject heroin. Lynn Macdonald, the service manager, tells us it is another medical emergency.

"The first four weeks, there were no medical emergencies, and then this week we've had five. "It could be a batch of drug that is problematic. People are noticing a difference in the heroin when they making it up, saying they are noticing a green tinge to it."

But it doesn't stop them injecting it, of course. Nothing will. They are addicts.  

Lynn Macdonald later told us: "I am absolutely convinced that had we not been present during the overdoses we've seen within the Thistle, then people would not have survived."

And you feel that this has somehow been a good thing for society? 

V.E. Day today

Orphans remember all who fought and those who died.

Some of those “elitists” above.

Burn, baby, burn

Trying to get at Julia, trying to get at me, trying to get to all of us now ... they've really ramped up the come-on with those of us slightly above Millennial age:

Watch out for something through your postbox or online.

I’m Sure All Those Other Owners Believed That Too, Lydia

The BBC appears to have paused its drag queen appreciation programming to focus on appreciation for bully dog owners instead.

A year ago, seven-year-old Lydia was walking to post a letter with her dad when she was savagely attacked by an XL bully that had escaped from a neighbour's garden. Matt says the day turned to horror in an instant, telling us he first saw the escaped dog out of the corner of his eye and within seconds it was "attached" to his daughter's arm, biting her three or four times. He says the dog kept lunging for Lydia and in a frantic effort to stop it mauling his daughter, he had to "lie on top of it". "It was remarkably strong," says Matt. He remembers Lydia's screams and seeing blood coming from her wounds, not knowing if her life was in danger. Lydia ended up in hospital but her dad says it could have been much worse: "I could be dealing with the fact that she's not with me and she's been killed. That kept me awake at night."

The incident left Matt with one question: Why would anyone want to own one of these dogs? He contacted Your Voice Your BBC News - and we took him to meet an XL bully owner to see if he could get some answers.

You might wonder if his daughter had been the victim of a Muslim paedophile gang instead of a dog, would the BBC have arranged a visit to the local mosque? The answer's probably 'Yes', of course...

As we open the gate, Matt visibly gulps. "I don't find myself uncomfortable like this very often," he says, adding that he feels awful to ask Lily to keep her pet away from him. "I feel sad that there's this thing almost automatically between us because of the type of dog it is."

It's called instinct, Matt,  although the bloodsport dogs will claim it's 'dog racism'. It's your body warning you that you are in the presence of a large carnivore. Trust your instinct.  

Lily, however, says she is used to people acting apprehensively around Doug but tells us she firmly believes that a dog's behaviour is determined by how it is brought up and trained.

Yes, Nicole Morey probably thought that too. And Angelene Mahal. Not to mention 'Ashton' here.  

Lily says she got Doug before the ban was introduced and that she has invested significant time into training her family pet. The dog was rescued from a backyard breeder and Lily tells us, if she and Hayden hadn't taken him in, there was a danger he'd have ended up in the wrong hands.

What are the right hands for these mutts, then, Lydia? It's clearly not yours, since if your 'pet' decided to attack someone, there's no way you could prevent it. Even your husband would struggle, unless he's built like the Rock. 

Matt says he can understand why Lily has taken Doug in - to rescue him from a different life - but he is still left with the same question: "Why would someone go after that breed of dog? Because all I can see is that it's about power and intimidation."

Nevertheless, Lily insists they can make "great family pets", adding: "[Doug's] not a status thing for us, he's not a weapon. We just love him so much."

I expect if I reread the stories I'd find all the maimed and mangled and slaughtered owners said the same things about thair 'pets' once or twice. 

Matt would like licences to be mandatory for all big dogs that can cause harm - and to be conditional on owners showing they have done the correct training.

Lily says she completely agrees and adds that the law should go even further, requiring licensing for all 13 million dogs in the country. She admits her dog could cause more damage than a smaller dog, but says they also fight and attack people.

They rarely kill people, though. And why should the lady across the road from me, a pensioner, be saddled with extra cost and paperwork to own her arthritic West Highland White which poses little risk should it ever turn, except to my ankles?

There are others who do think the Dangerous Dogs Act and XL bully ban are having an impact. Professor Vivien Lees, from the Royal College of Surgeons, told us that even though she and other surgeons were treating similar numbers of patients, they were seeing fewer of the most extreme injuries than they were the previous year.

Well, how much of that is due to a decrease in bully breeds, and how much is due to the fact the victims often skip the surgical team and go straight to the coroner, it's hard to say... 

Childish petulance … or something far deeper?

This turns on three screenshots, then my take on it after that.  First the news itself:

Various comments:

It struck me that, even given Nigel Farage’s past history with UKIP high ups and TBP, there’s an edge to this one he’s developed which one could call childish petulance but I suspect it’s far more Yusef than him:

Arron Banks seems to be putting money in too, plus other donors … then there’s Musk’s reaction to Farage’s bona fides. I’d still come back to Yusef as a portal for the MCB and the greater spread of that agenda. We’re certainly beset by various clashing and colluding agendas … in taqiyya one might say.

Whether the Reform agenda looks further ahead to that or it’s Nigel’s eternal ambition for a PMship and a gong … it’s a peculiar way to run a party.