This is Thursday’s post early, hope Julia forgives me.
Speaking personally, I tried to explain to people that outside the isles, our flag for international purposes, is the union flag (not jack) … inside our borders, it’s our home country flag, in my case the CofStG. The home country flags are easier to paint on.
Now, I saw some England fans say no … no union flag, as it is Empire. Sorry … what about our Scottish, Welsh, NI loyalists to what we are, what we are about? The person who first retweeted me was Subrosa, who is Scottish but feels part of all natives to these islands. I for one am not going to reject my home country friends. Nor the Gurkhas.
Now, what about Ben? Still thinking about this:
So, what do we say to Ben? Think we have to think all this through. What I can say though is the flag-upping is grand, it is raising consciousness in a nice way.
When it comes to the Lucy Letby case, there are two parallel universes. In one, the question of her guilt is settled. She is a monster who murdered seven babies and attempted to murder seven more while she was a nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016.
In the other universe, Letby is the victim of a flawed criminal justice system in which unreliable medical evidence was used to condemn and imprison an innocent woman.
Probably not for the first time…
These extremes are both disturbing and bewildering. One of them is wrong - but which? Who should we believe?
Well, I know who doesn’t earn my attention- the ones who are denying there’s any doubt and waving their child’s shroud around to try to ensure there is no retrial.
The families of the infants say there is no doubt. Letby was convicted after a 10-month trial by a jury that had considered a vast range of evidence. They say Letby's defenders are picking on small bits of evidence out of context and that the constant questioning of her guilt is deeply distressing.
Well, tough.
Ultimately, the question of whether Letby's case should be re-examined by the Court of Appeal now lies with CCRC. They have the task of studying Mark McDonald's expert reports.
If he is successful and Lucy Letby's case is referred back to the Court of Appeal - that is ultimately where the expert evidence on both sides will face a true reckoning.
And frankly, that’s long overdue. The days of saying ‘We’ll, the justice system slwsys get it right first time’ are long over.
Connected to that is not ignoring your gut instinct. If it says act now, then yes … attack. If it says no … then time for the shutters to go up.
Across the way at our place is a post item with James Martinez (the host has been at punditry a long time) and he’s saying there are things very very wrong just now … not just globopolitically but within individuals … there’s a video plus some screenshots … one of those screenshots, referring to him, not me, is:
Not only reaction to certain demographics appearing via globopsycho but also in how we ourselves react to things in general. Here is how Britain is reacting just now:
Sometimes it’s easy to say no … to the murderous Zelclown, to Starmer, to Obama … but sometimes it’s not easy … not through threat but through honeypot:
Rubio is susceptible too:
All right … I’m susceptible to Julia, just as many readers are … in fact to many classy women … this is a fellow Xer of long standing … she’d been referring to Donny and Giorgia:
Keeps the world turning, doesn’t it … if it works for the good of people … why not?
Coming back to the heading about citadels … yes, there is trouble on the way … you’d really have to be obtuse or stubborn not to see this, esp. with Fink taking over the WEF, meaning the EU and Demrats, meaning Starmer in turn, Carney etc. etc.
I visualise each of us having an inner circle of our citadel … family, closest friends … then a second ring of vital people … then by degrees further rings. At the citadel walls, heavily fortified, are mounted the armaments, turned outwards … and the baddies out there are given hell by us. Any attack from outside the citadel … well, we deal with it dispassionately, even if seething overall.
But to do that, we must have an orderly, calm citadel … we can’t fight outwards and inwards at the same time. Yesterday, I had three unfortunate stress producers within the citadel … one still not sorted, one involved saying no to some electronic gadgetry being pressed onto me … I can easily say no to someone outside the citadel but to someone inside, it can mess you around a bit, having to say no … not through weakness but through gratitude and affection … but this particular thing I’m just not going to do. End of.
The one who got through the defences though ignored my constant request at X, in the profile, not to DM me on either money you want or sex … that’s a constant rule.
She chose to ignore that, came in, DM’ing, red flags went up quickly, asking me personal details straight away, she ignored what I wrote back, then asked if I’d ever considered crypto.
Goodbye.
Yet in her profile, she’d said proTrump, pro MAGA, happily married. It sure got past my defences, we mutually followed, she then DM’ed. I’m not sure it could have been avoided. I ran it past my mama-mate … yep, the DM’er had been out of order. I then learnt much about that state in the union where she lived, a blue state.
Any “still within the citadel” unresolved biz? Well yes … the moniker within comments issue … that’s still ongoing but shall think on’t, dot dot dot.
There is one more … Gab have re-opened for UK users, our profiles are still there. Shall I bother? Thinking on’t … meanwhile, post this, get back to our blog across the way, plus see what Julia is up to on X … I like to know what she has planned for bin day, lunch and dinner, plus London Transport.
Plans to disclose the ethnicity and immigration status of criminal suspects in the UK have been condemned by race campaigners for setting a dangerous precedent for “dog-whistle politics”, which will make “Black and brown communities more vulnerable”.
To what? Those who don’t come into contact with the criminal justice system won’t have anything to worry about, so why should anyone concern themselves with those who do, since they got there by being criminals?
The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has welcomed new police guidelines released on Wednesday which encourage forces to release the race and nationality of those charged in high-profile cases.
It is meant to combat misinformation on social media, which spread last summer after the murder of three schoolgirls in Southport. False information about the killer’s nationality, religion and asylum status fuelled widespread unrest throughout the country.
It is, of course, all the usual suspects who are raging about it, which tells you a lot. Just look at this line-up of grotesques:
Enny Choudhury, the co-head of legal at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said: “Releasing the ethnicity of everyone suspected of serious crimes will … simply fuel mistrust, deepen divisions, and make Black and brown communities more vulnerable to prejudice and harm.
“Some point to cases like Southport, where rumours were quashed by releasing specific information. But building a blanket policy around this is dangerous. It turns race into a variable in policing and public debate – when we know the vast majority of serious crimes, including sexual offences, are committed by white men."
Followed by yet another cosy clique:
Peter Herbert, from the Society of Black Lawyers, questioned the role of the police around issues of ethnicity and nationality when forces still face allegations of institutional racism.
And finally, an example of where it all started to go wrong for the police in this country:
The former Metropolitan police chief superintendent Dal Babu has warned of the “unintended consequences” of the new guidance, which he said could lead to more online speculation in cases where these details are not released.
“The danger is there will be an expectation for police to release information on every single occasion,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
That’s three people who’s opinion on race should be discounted immediately , since they are all race hustlers extraordinaire.
“Freedom, oh freedom … well that’s just some people talking.” (The Eagles, Desperado, 1973)
Yes, readers, it’s the age old, pesky issue of libertarianism … namely, how far does it go? “Do as thou wilt,” the ancient satanic maxim, “and to hell with anyone else? Don’t you oppress me you fascist.”
By that maxim, that flasher of his gear at children on that train … he was perfectly within his rights? How about gay porn for children in classrooms, with the rainbow flag on the wall? Rainbow and Hamas flags from council offices on commemoration days such as Dunkirk or VJ Day?
Or this?
What about Hanoi Jane during Vietnam? Hundreds of American GIs killed, bodies usually sent home … while Hanoi Jane sits astride a Viet Cong barrel for a photo op? Do the words “treason to one’s people” not arise there? Or does libertarianism dictate that if a jihadi is raping your daughter, you must stand back like our plod and let him (or them) get on with it?
Decades ago, I asked a chap named Tim Worstall about this (never did ask DK) and his reply was, “Classical Liberalism.” That is … maximum possible freedom, with some constraints of decency or consideration.
That’s fine … quite a while ago, there was an item about two gays I think it was doing it in public. Our Julia wrote, “Get a room.” I mean, that act which could not be unseen that day and for many days … did we not have a right not to see that? How about a Podesta cartoon about a group of men gathered around a bed gangraping a toddler? That’s fine according to the libertarian maxim?
All right, less extreme is my constant request to put a moniker or handle somewhere in the text in your comment, out of courtesy? Yet there was another comment on my post yesterday, ignoring that admin request. His right should trample over that of the blog admin? Her gaff, her rules, his gaff, his rules, no longer apply here?
Let’s move on … how about these?
Just as Reform in the UK should probably sort out its set of policy planks to avoid being no more than the Uniparty reboiled, maybe libertarians should sort out where the red lines are or are not?
We are, essentially, our sources, end of. It’s where our incoming news is sourced which determines everything, which shapes the boundaries of our world view and our mindset.
I’m far more interested in why a good Brit friend, Lisa, on X, would even say, “Putin knew his nunber was up.” Whaaaa? That is so far from the reading most deep dive pundits have made, it’s as if this lady wakes up, takes her dogs to the beach, paddles in those red flip-flops, comes home and turns on the BBC, C4 or talk radio … it’s Zelenski, Two Tier and Micron fantasyworld.
It went exactly as was mooted, Putin passed Trump a folder, man to man, bypassing Susan Wiles and Lindsey Graeme. I can tell you what was in it … it was either the whole story from 2014 Maidan onwards which so many know of in our online deep dive archives …
… or else it was what Svali warned of in 2000 in Toronto … she noted that America and Russia were never at war … the secret envoys would meet up in Germany and have a good laugh.
Interesting that Putin made the sign of the cross at that grave:
He was certainly signalling and those from Greece to Hungary to Russia were noting it. So was the murderous Zelclown himself, hiding behind Two Tier and Micron.
Xi says he’s holding off, BRICs are holding off, the world is avidly watching …
… but truly, good people, dump the MSM, get your news from very slowly built up sources who are NOT trying to build media empires.
The 44-year-old lawyer, who was visiting London from New Orleans, said: “We love it here, it’s a great atmosphere with all of the stands and the unique things, minus the barriers. It’s so unfortunate – seeing them is a sign of how we live now.”
'Here' being London's famous Portobello Road, A place I haven't visited in years, and never will again now:
This is because of new rules that ban all cars from Portobello Road between 10am and 4pm, where much of the 1999 film was shot. In some sections of the famed street market the restrictions cover the whole week, while in others only three days. To enforce the new rules, large grey concrete slabs and garish red barriers have been placed along the street.If Notting Hill were filmed today, the visible restrictions “would take away” from the movie, said Ella’s mother, Katie Alasky. The barriers and travel restrictions were put in place on the advice of counter-terror police who have warned of the potential threat of vehicle attacks.
Being the 'Guardian' of course, the emphasis is on the imagined effect on a popular film of the chattering classes created by a celebrated progressive director when the real story is the effects it's having on the life and businesses of those who live and work there.
Local residents have also been affected. “I’m not a designer but I’m sure I could design something better than that,” said Patrick Somers, 65, a former lawyer who lives in a side-road behind the market.
Somers said people had only found out about the restrictions a few days before they had been implemented on 1 July. He is now leading a legal challenge, with the help of the law firm Broadfield, on behalf of residents and traders against Kensington and Chelsea council, who enacted the changes.
“They have not thought this through. We’ve got all sorts of unintended consequences here,” said Somers. He feared the curtailed access could pose a danger in an emergency situation.Recently, an ambulance had been unable to get past barriers to attend to a child who was having respiratory problems, Somers said.
The response from the council is, as expected 'We know best, peasants!':
A Kensington and Chelsea council spokesperson said: “Our top priority remains the safety and wellbeing of everyone in the community and we believe the current measures strike a reasonable balance between protecting the public and supporting the needs of individuals.
“We continue to speak with residents and businesses, addressing concerns case by case to help inform proposals for a permanent scheme.”
Pity you didn't think to do that before.... Remember hoe, during the IRA terrorist campaign, the emphasis was always on how it shouldn't be allowed to change our lives?
That a door is open doesn’t stop someone being charged with breaking and entering. It’s still entering with intent to commit burglary. 14yr prison sentence if the property is a home/dwelling/residence. https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/9
This was covered elsewhere as well:
……
Housekeeping
A word to readers. The reason so many middling to major ggl bloggers stipulate that Anon comments go straight to bin is because ggl themselves then threaten the blogger, the admin and this is no joke on ggl blgr, as any who once read the old nourishing obscurity know.
I’ve repeatedly asked commenters to apply a simple method to circumvent the issue … invent a name out of your head and use it somewhere in the text of your comment … I called it a moniker … it identifies only for other readers of that comments section.
If ggl or anyone else then come after, let’s say, someone calling himself Freddy, then clearly it’s not one of the others using monikers, is it? Ggl or whoever do not come after them and therefore the system is a safeguard to protect most commenters.
Some klutzes have said “but that’s complying with the Deep State or Big Tech”. Look, Big Tech provide this platform, ok … they do have certain rights in their Ts and Cs, as providers. Ditto with WP and any other provider, even Ghost.
Inventing a moniker is not putting it up front as your sign-in … you still use Anon there if you wish. Your invented moniker only appears sonewhere in your text, it is not on any register anywhere connected to Orphans.
It is a courtesy to other readers … remember that word “courtesy”? Thank you, dear reader and your custom is greatly appreciated.
