Then Claw It Back!

More than £300m given to English councils to help Ukrainian refugees into accommodation has not been spent, while thousands of them face homelessness. Freedom of information requests to 150 councils in England, shared with the Guardian, identified that £327m – about a third of the £1bn budget – was still sitting in council bank accounts more than three years after Russia invaded Ukraine.

So get it back - Rachel Thieves needs every penny she can get her clumsy hands on, doesn’t she?  

Most of the funds councils have spent have been used to pay staff and partner organisations. Only £22m has been spent on temporary accommodation for Ukrainians and £15m to help them into private rented accommodation.

So the councils are just sitting on the cash? Why? Do they get to spend the interest earned on other things?  

Baljeet Nijjhar of UKrainian Refugee Help, who obtained and collated the FoI data, said: “Local councils are allocated thousands of pounds per Ukrainian arrival, yet the guests we support seem to struggle to access this directly when in need. “The most common issue is inability to rent privately and people often don’t know anyone in the UK who could act as a guarantor, so it’s the local council that they must rely on here to solve this problem. “Our research shows that many councils have significant levels of funds left, but have helped very few people to rent, whereas others have demonstrated a ‘can do’, proactive approach and have helped significantly more.”

Is this just usual local council incompetence or are they benefiting from this in some way? 

Dr Krish Kandiah, the director of the Sanctuary Foundation, which provides support for Ukrainian refugees, praised the British public for their hospitality. “It is now vital that the UK builds on that generosity by ensuring that every Ukrainian has the security and dignity of their own front door,” he said.

Personally, I think it’s vital that they ensure that every Brit has that before we look at providing it for foreigners. 

Getting around inheritance tax

This is from Australia, from one of the most respected conservative alt-journos … Spectator Oz I believe sacked her, just as the UK controlled opposition sacked Mark Steyn … she is vilified all day by the Wokerati down there, plus the globopsycho “elite” … those are fine credentials for the lass.

Issue here is … is Alex referring to Oz or GB? If Oz, then Labor there are clearly following Starmer’s minders’ lead.  They’re scumbags down there too and still people re-elect them because the alternative … the faux Tory equivalent, are just as bad. Uniparty.

🍿🍿🍿🍿

One of the greatest scandals ever to blight the west

There are copious sources on covid, lockdowns, jabs, of which these are just two from today’s posting by our guy Steve across the way:

18 million COVID-JABBED Japanese folks shown to have significantly higher death rates during first year after injection with mRNA clot shots | https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-08-22-18-million-covid-jabbed-japanese-shown-to-have-significantly-higher-death-rates.html

CDC faces lawsuit over unstudied childhood vaccine schedule as COVID-19 shots added without parental consent | https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-08-21-cdc-faces-lawsuit-unstudied-childhood-vaccine-schedule.html

We could go anecdotal as well … case by case … just ask our third member here, Grandpa, about his dear wife … then again, best let the memory rest.  Any number of case studies on X.  One of my friends was speaking of his mum who decided to have the jabs … yes, you know what I was going to conclude this with. RIP.

Driver yesterday, one I know, been away six months, footballer, first spoke of some League player who just collapsed … same pattern.  Common factor … jabs.

Then we get to something more provable, as if that were not:

An interesting read, but not in mainstream literature, is The Liverpool Pathway, though that’s about the mass murder of the elderly only, not all the youngsters today.

And the perps are almost all still at large, safe and secure in the knowledge no one will get to them.  (Unless something happens involving peasants and pitchforks of course.)

But That Means I Have To Actually Parent!

This summer the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, announced he was considering a two-hour “screen time” cap on children’s use of social media apps – a proposal that is not just insufficient, it’s outdated.

It's also doomed to failure, as most parents will simply pay no notice. It is, indeed, like most of Labour's grand ideas, utterly unenforceable. 

We should indeed be thinking about moderating time on screens, but the proposed cap addresses only the quantity of consumption, not the quality. Fortunately, as someone who lectures on digital literacy (and is a mother), I can tell you there are some ways to push back and create healthier habits for children this summer – even if the government doesn’t seem to have caught up with them yet.

And here’s some Karen from HR to give you some tips on how to manage your child’s browsing habits. Aren’t you just so lucky?  

Limiting screen time has been the dominant digital guidance used by parents, educators – and all of us really – over the past decade. This advice emerged after studies indicated that increasing screen time could be a risk factor for being overweight/obesity in children and adolescents. This was, and is, good guidance to promote physical health. However, it didn’t include robust discussion about how the quality or nature of content online might be affecting mental health.

You mean, quality not quantity is most important? Gosh! What a revelation!  

For example, in following this guidance, you could have one child watching CBeebies with their family in a communal space, engaging in discussion; and another child wearing headphones and watching algorithmically driven YouTube shorts. Under “screen time” guidance, these two forms of viewing would be considered equal. But, of course, they are qualitatively very different. In this scenario, one child is engaged in interactive, collective viewing with a parent that might be a jumping-off point for discussion and connection. The other child’s viewing is isolated and fragmented; they are consuming short-form content, probably with little focus on meaningful storylines or characters, on a platform that is still, by comparison, unregulated.

I can’t wait to see what other pearls of wisdom drop in this article… 

If it helps, here are some of the things I’ll be doing with my kids during the summer holidays.

• For younger children, time off screens is generally better than on. However, when we do use screens, I encourage my own children to watch live TV on platforms such as CBeebies and CBBC, as this provides a diversity of content curated by a children’s programmer. Lots of time and advocacy has gone into producing it.(Ed: not to mention licensepayer’s money) 
• Prioritise active and engaged viewing over passive viewing. This means content that encourages creativity and discussion. This supports active brain engagement, learning and communication skills. It’s often better to opt for collective over solitary viewing, which can act as a springboard for discussion and build critical thinking and social engagement skills.(Ed: collectives don’t promote the creativity you seem to desire, quite the opposite in fact!)
• Begin seeding critical thinking about digital content from an early age. You can input questionable images into platforms such as Sightengine, and they will tell you how likely each image is to be fake. This is a great way to start conversations about disinformation online.(Ed: start with BBC verify)
• Speak to older children about what they want their digital diet to look like. Together, dedicate half an hour a week to training the machine learning by actively searching for positive content – content that they are passionate about or that makes them feel good. Don’t watch uninteresting, uninspiring content or content that makes them (or you) feel bad. (Ed: who continues to watch stuff that they don’t enjoy?) Quickly move past it.
• And teach them not to like, share things or comment on things that they don’t like. Even commenting on something you don’t like counts as engagement, meaning you may get more of it.(Ed: who shares things they don’t think are worth sharing?)
• As a family, do an “uninspiring” clean. If it no longer inspires or educates you, unfollow it. This includes exes, TV personalities and brands. Do this regularly to clean up your feed and narrow in on what you do want to see.(Ed:Place your hopes on the algorithm you've decided is the root of all evil?)
• To combat targeted advertising, there are some Google alternatives you might want to look at as a family. DuckDuckGo or Firefox Focus are search engines that do not track you to serve targeted ads. You could also look at Startpage, which allows you to use Google without tracking your digital footprint.(Ed:Deliberately cripple the main functionality of the tool you use, because you can't handle what it does? )

Governments may not be properly regulating this technology, but as parents, there are still things we can do.

Yes, but that takes time and effort and actually interacting with your offspring, and so many modern parents don't want to do that. In fact, so many modern parents seem to be little more than children themselves. 

Lucy Connolly Thursday

We'd best say something I suppose:

More Flag-Upping

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.

Longrider

Longrider will always be honoured at Orphans … if you can, get thee over there and see what gives:

Well, Maybe We Shouldn’t Believe those Who Want Us To Stop Questioning...

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.

Keeping the citadel functional … and the power of “No!”

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.

I Note They Don't Say Exactly What It Will Make Them 'More Vulnerable' To...

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.