Well Tough Luck, Polly, Because Now is When They Are Having it

Britain is an insular country that needs reminding it is not alone in its political turmoil after an omnishambles week for Keir Starmer’s government.

Discontent and distrust spread as global democracy declines. Only 6.6% of the world’s people live in a full democracy, according to the Economist’s global index, down from 12.5% 10 years ago.

Oh dear, is this an inconvenient time for you, Polly?  

Only last year, Britain was heralded as the strong and stable nation of Europe, with Labour commanding a stonking great majority. As a result, the shock is all the worse now that, 16 months later, support for the government has plummeted to 18%, falling a frightening 15 points behind Reform UK.

It's called 'Buyer's Remorse'. 

True, it’s a government blighted by bad luck, inheriting Treasury account books with uncosted promises from the previous chancellor and Brexit damage even worse than predicted...

They can't blame the Tories forever, Polly... 

Voices expecting Starmer to last four years are mute, while despairing talk is only about who will succeed him and when. After the budget, perhaps? Or after May’s potentially apocalyptic local elections?

And the options aren't good. Frankly, its an 'out of the frying pan. into the industrial blast furnace' situation. 

I doubt a panicked leadership election now would lift Labour’s fortunes: a challenge might fail, the attempt would be messy, noisy and divisive, and it might not leave the impression of a fresh party knowing where it’s going.

Then that will be the correct impression. 

MPs might examine their own failings as well as their leader’s. I remain puzzled by how little enthusiasm Labour has managed to spread for the quite impressive list of things it has done in a short time that should please natural supporters.

Polly doesn't elaborate on what she considers  these 'quite impressive things' to be, and a trawl through her latest columns provided no clues. I suppose it depends on your definition of 'impressive'.

Asked what the government has done and what it stands for, sullen voters on doorsteps tell pollsters they don’t know. Well, it’s the difficult job of politicians to light their way, instil optimism and make coherent sense of their policies. For Labour, that’s 10 times harder against the distorting wall of sound of the vast rightwing hate media, far more mendacious now than in Tony Blair’s day. Mistakes are amplified, successes silenced.

Another person who believes there's 'a vast rightwing media' despoite who signs her paycheques. 

Coprighted images

In a bind this Sunday morning as there are two pressing topics I'd like to address, one on free speech and blasphemy laws ... t'other on copyright, esp. regarding images. The first would have the livelier discussion of course, the second, courtesy John in Cheshire, is one of those necessary cautionary tales.

Going to run with this latter, while the blasphemy one is better over at Unherdables in Sunday [1] where there's more scope for far greater length.  Doing this OoL one first.

This is what John in Cheshire sent yesterday:

I know that you do not use Discus, but this may be of interest to you. Tom Armstrong runs "Free Speech Feedback" site.   This morning he received notice of copyright infringement and asked if any readers can help.   This is one reply....

Tom, re the copyright infringement email you received, I asked this question in ChatGPT:

If an image deemed to infringe copyright is posted on a Disqus discussion which has been embedded in an iframe on my site, who should receive the infringement notice, me or Disqus?

This was the reply:

This situation depends on who actually hosts and controls the image, but here’s the practical and widely accepted breakdown:

Who usually receives the copyright notice?

The notice typically goes to the party that publicly published or distributed the infringing image.

In your scenario:

If the image was uploaded inside Disqus, the file is hosted by Disqus, not by you. The user uploaded it into Disqus’s platform, not onto your server. It is displayed on your site only because their system is embedded via an iframe, which keeps their content separate.

Therefore, Disqus is usually the legally responsible “service provider” for the image.
They would be the first target for a DMCA/infringement complaint.

But can you still receive a notice?

Sometimes, yes — even if you’re not ultimately responsible. Copyright-enforcement firms often:

Scan the visual content shown on your webpage ... Don’t understand (or don’t care) that the image is in an iframe ... Send the notice to the website owner anyway because the image appears on your site.

So in practice

You might be contacted, even if you’re not legally the uploader or host. If it happens, the correct response is usually to direct them to Disqus, since that’s the hosting & upload platform.

Why the iframe matters

When content is embedded via an iframe, your site is not “hosting” the content. You are not “reproducing” or “transmitting” the image; the browser loads it from Disqus’s server, not yours.

Legally, it’s more like linking, not publishing. This makes you much less likely to be considered the infringing party.

Important exception

If you yourself encouraged, solicited, or asked users to upload copyrighted images, a copyright owner might argue contributory infringement.

Summary ... most likely scenario

For normal Disqus usage, this is not an issue. Disqus, because they host the user-uploaded image.

However, you might still receive a notice simply because the image is visible on your page. If so, the appropriate response is to explain that the content is delivered via Disqus iframe. Provide the copyright claimant with Disqus’s DMCA agent info.

All right, that was the sum total of the text sent to me, pertaining particularly to Disqus. Frankly, I avoid Disqus like the plague or any other highly manipulative commercial comments offering, with two exceptions ... Google Blogger, plus Word Press. We could throw in Substack too. Each has its own set of Ts and Cs, plus it allows some things to happen, not others, on its own platform.

The complication is that different Ts and Cs apply in the US, Canada, the UK, the EU and the antipodes, where "first world civilisation" is found (risible today) ... and those Ts and Cs clash.

We're talking here about image copyright, not text nor footage.  The approach at OoL is (see policies in navbar):

Regarding copyright, all attempts are made to attribute images but if there's any issue, we require 24 hours to take down but will not, in any way, shape or form, respond to attempts at extortion.

The thing there is that "decent" complainants allow that period of grace ... for me, personally, it means instantly, upon reading it ... I take the image down.  It's not normally an issue at OoL but it often can be on some pages of Unherdables.  That's for us ... for Julia and me here.

The issue is predators deliberately scouring the net in order to relieve unsuspecting image uploaders of their hardearned ... extorters. We admins have that set response above.

With you, ordinarily, you would not be aware of the legal ins and outs but there is one exception, called "hotlinking":

That's a no-no.  I avoid it usually by screenshooting the pic, compressing it, as well as asking the uploader for permission or if not possible, then at least attributing afap.

Of Bailey at the BofE, Rupert, Monty Python and Ancient Rome

Rupert wrote, two days ago:

The Governor of the Bank of England must resign. Earlier this month, I was provided with evidence stating that Andrew Bailey had sent this correspondence to Bank of England staff following my criticism of a Bank internship scheme that specifically excluded white applicants. Bailey sent this message to Bank staff, using Bank of England systems. "Mr Lowe has stooped to a level no politician should ever stoop to. It’s entirely regrettable and frankly we should have no time for this sort of thing." Strict rules specifically prevent Bank staff from acting politically - which this evidently is. I have contacted Mr Bailey, who has just responded with this. "In my message to staff of 24 October, to which you refer in your email, I made these points clear to my colleagues across the Bank who may have had concerns about your comments condemning these programmes as ‘vile’ and as 'racist filth’." This is outrageous. I made fair criticisms of an internship scheme that specifically banned white people from applying. The Bank's independence is of absolute importance, the governor must be impartial and uninvolved in politics - particularly not to use the bank's influence to spread any political messaging against a sitting MP. This is disgraceful behaviour. Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, must resign or be sacked.

Hearts of Oak wrote 13 hours ago now:

Lord Pearson telling the government that the Grooming Gang problem should not be laid at the door of Pakistani Men but with Muslim Men. Therefore the problem is religious and not ethnic. Hear the gasps from the chamber at the end.

In Monty Python's Dead Bishop sketch, the housewife says to the officer: Society is to blame."

"We'll be charging them too."

There's truth in that though. Much as people might not like it, there was a code of ethics underpinning western society even as recently as the mid 60s which the people of the time at least paid lip service to ... see Profumo, Ward, Christine Keeler and Mandy R-D.

The loss of that code, which so many critics saw as just a Sodom and Gomorrah danger, was vastly more than that ... it was hordes coming south to ancient Rome, it was also a different flood of hordes up through the Iberian Peninsula, it was the later Gates of Vienna ... the badly educated person today, brought up on Fabian Wokery at home and in schools (see Enoch Burke) is truly ignorant of past ... condemned to repeat the same invasion and dark ages as before.

More Inaccuracy In MSM Headlines

Hmm, no, that's not quite right. 

Ah, that's better.  

The International Olympic Committee is edging closer towards implementing a ban on transgender women competing in the female category in time for the Los Angeles Olympic Games. Multiple sources expect such a ban to come into effect over the next six to 12 months with the new IOC president, Kirsty Coventry, making clear she wants to drive through her campaign pledge to protect the female category.

Electing a woman president clearly paid off! 

Speculation that the IOC would introduce a new policy as soon as January intensified on Monday after it was reported that its director of health, medicine and science, Dr Jane Thornton, had given a science-based review of the evidence to its members last week, showing there were permanent physical advantages to being born male.

As did appointing a female director of health, medecine and science!  

The dark lord and lady of orphans

Each evening and early morning, Julia transforms into and out of her wild animal form (snarl, snarl) whilst the otherwise saintly jimbo gets into his sith outfit:

... and paces the floor of the internet, doing unspeakable things to pundits' comments sections.  But it's obvious The Daily Sceptic are onto him ... witness:

Tony Blair, never shy about grand designs, has described digital identity as “a system of identity so that we know precisely who has a right to be here” — a tool he sees as essential to curbing populism and migration. Keir Starmer’s administration, though more circumspect, has set a target of 95% adult coverage via the GOV.UK Wallet by 2030. The Online Safety Act serves as the soft launch of a national ID card by stealth. The breaches, the VPN surge, the dark-web migration — all are treated as teething problems rather than fatal flaws. Officials point to the millions of compliant verifications as evidence of success, while quietly expanding the scope of the Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework to encompass financial services, rental agreements and even NHS access. The firewall is not merely blocking content, it is gating citizenship itself.

Isn't that the Creeperati all over? In Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey tells Richard Vernon that if the civil service section head does not immediately get what he wants, that's hardly the end of it ... it's just a temporary setback (in the rolling out of the narrative).  The arrogance of people locked into the Globos' dark, sicko narrative illustrates the fiendish fanaticism of what are, after all, the hierarchical hordes of hell ... except they of course don't know that ... all the compliant apparatchiki and karens see themselves as goblins for good.

In October 2000, in that interview with the formerly illumined San Diego torturer, Svali, on Toronto radio, she explained that every one of these people is brainwashed into seeing him or herself as a key implementer of the "change for the sake of change" agenda ... any inconvenience to "the little people" who disagree a necessary, temporary, if fatal, inconvenience they must endure on the road to the fifth turning ... nirvana.  Each apparatchik or henchman or woman or karen is hellbent on implementing the new paradise.

We've already seen the hordes of college girls drawn into it, plus the male antifa types ... allied of course with the deathcult itself busily building paramilitary weapons stashes for the marauders currently roaming the streets, bravely attacking women, children and old people.

Some of these wokerati, a shorter word for the destructive-narrative-brainwashed, mature in time, whilst others like Islington Corbyn never do ... their version of eternal youth.  Katie "Adrenochrome Dreg" Couric, former blonde beauty bimbo on US TV is another example.  Von Leyen and Co. are other apparatchiki or High Priestesses in their own diseased minds.

The latest is the wonderfully named Senator Slotkin in the States who has joined other demonrats in urging armed forces personnel not to obey any "illegal" order from the Dark Lord of Mar a Lago, as it's by definition unconstitutional, they've decided for themselves.  After all, they must defend the "democracy" they've shredded over the past decade.

The little matter of their actions being high treason quite escapes them.

For now. Two tier law, two tier constitution in their controlled brains.

Anyway, have a good working day today, try to avoid being stabbed or raped by a savage.

It's Telling They Weren't Worried About Staying Out Of Jail...

That thing that never happens (according to the trans activists, anyway!) happened again....

The nation's first openly transgender lawmaker once asked her accomplice girlfriend if they would still get into heaven as they exchanged lewd photos of children as young as three.

And of course, despite the charges and the natutre of the crimes, the MSM insists on respecting their chosen peonouns....  

Disgraced New Hampshire Rep. Stacie-Marie Laughton, who was born Barry Laughton, 41, was arrested in 2023 and was charged with aiding and abetting the sexual exploitation of children. She pleaded guilty to the charges in federal court in Boston last week, and admitted to encouraging her then-girlfriend, Lindsay Groves, 40, to take nude photos of young children in her care at Creative Minds daycare in Tyngsborough, Massachusetts, KRCR reports.

Unluvkily for them, Middle America takes a dim view of the sort of thing and isn't inclined to be as lenient as the pathetic excuse for a justice system that we have over here... 

At another point, Laughton expressed her fears that they would be arrested. 'I don't wanna get caught if we do,' she wrote to Groves on June 7 of that year. 'Lots of parents don't like people touching their kids and it is against the law,' she noted.

Let's see a lawyer argue their way out of that!  

...the ex-politician and Groves - who entered into her own plea agreement last month, admitting to sending Laughton the explicit photos - now face between 15 to 30 years in prison, a fine up to $250,000 and a lifetime of supervised release.

Over here, they'd probablt not even get any jail time. And if they did, some bungling civil servant would see they were let out before serving too much of it! 

Rupert has a plan

As well as bringing the women's defemce ladies into parliament, he's come up with this:

Next thing is to get some debate on it and maybe even Yusuf bypassed in the interests of the country.

The Only Form Of Visible Virtue Signalling The Left Doesn't Support

At the start of last week, I was thinking my regular Remembrance season thoughts – Are people wearing poppies earlier every year? – and by the middle of the week, I’d agreed to have a quick morning argument about poppies on the radio. David Lammy had been caught in parliament without one, and roundly castigated. He had responded with sentiments to the effect that Remembrance Sunday was the most important day of the year; nobody found it more important than him; anyone who didn’t think it was important was not a patriot; and by sheer hideous happenstance, he had a new suit, and his poppy was on the other suit. 

Yes, that sound like the sort of hopelessly incompetent bluster one can expect when David Lamentable has been caught out again... 

Some of us were thus called on to adjudicate on remembrance, while the more agile wing of the commentariat was wondering how Lammy could afford a new suit.

Perhaps he too is a friend of Lord Ali? 

Anyway, my line hasn’t changed on this for at least 25 years. Wear a poppy, don’t wear a poppy, both are legitimate positions. Honouring the fallen is worthwhile. Finding all that performative honour a bit militaristic, and declining to have your love of country elided with celebration of war, even in a tinged-with-sorrow way, also worthwhile. You do you.

Strange hoe suddenly it's up to individuals, and to suggest that they ought to wear a visible sign of approval with something is not considered an appalling attack on the thing itself, eh?  

Anyway, Sunday came, I was bombing along the Thames on my bike, and I couldn’t figure out why I wasn’t allowed to cycle round Parliament Square, nor why all the crash barriers were down across Westminster Bridge. It wasn’t until I noticed a large number of people wearing medals that I clocked it; I’d spent so long arguing about poppies that I’d forgotten it was Remembrance Sunday.

Ladies and gentleman, the Left! So in touch with Britain!  

Who exactly caused these two things to happen?

My consciousness of the out-and-out lying to us was from Cameron and successors ignoring the clear vote for Brexit but then something else sprang to mind ... it was Jack Straw saying he hated the English. Wish I'd kept the clipping, from 2010.

From that date on, I decided to trust none of em but not just the pollies, WEF, letter agencies et all ... but also pundits, hence the earlier post, and for those reasons. Now, in 2025, it's pretty much my job not to initially trust but only after a friend is proven to be so.

Thus, when these two Xposts came up, my first instinct was to say, "AI?" or, "Who's to say that's only third world savages?"  Here's the first:

Now don't get me wrong ... I want the savages out of the country as much as anyone ... just wondering if anything as blatant as this has actually been done? I'm thinking no ... so who put out the picture?  Who took it, who AIed it?  This Matt Casey? Wasn't Helen, I know her, she's just an English curmudgeonette.

Were it indeed so, then we're talking council, aren't we? Not even Antifa this time, nor rainbow haired, nose ringed young karens.  All right, here's the second:

We need to know about this Connor first, his bkgd, plus Landeur's.  Not saying it's not so, not at all. What if it was council though or wokerati flotsam or even some of our own lot doing a false flag?  What if it was the deep state paying for it to be done so that the savages can be blamed?

Why?  Well look at the agenda ... above all else, they want the slaughter to start.  The deep state considers civil war is well overdue ... karens versus unvaxxed, wokerati versus the sane, doesn't matter who the combatants are ... they want slaughter.

Interesting that no one ever takes out the instigators themselves.

Explore the messenger first, before trusting the message

We have a watch list accessible from the navbar at Unherdables and it’s not the usual Obama, Blair etc. known-knowns … but the players behind the scenes in the current punditry, the ones who go under the radar because they’re the Paul Reveres they’d have you believe.

There are any number of people, often under reinvented moniker, who “rush” “breaking news” to you … they’re never there to examine in depth and to learn … watch out for these is my advice, just who are they? Whom are they representing in reality? Which lobby?

Part of the sum total of non-Wokerati pundits are the “would be big stars of punditry”, often with their own big followings and own site, e.g. Guido, but also a new breed, often found on substack for some reason, e.g. Dan Wooton. As one who uses substack himself, it has severe limitations … it’s for the pundit who wishes to bring the scoop or column in simple form, centre page, to be a “highly respected oracle, a go-to quotee” … these are the minor media empire builders.

What I’m asking you the reader to do is to be a bit more circumspect, a bit “uh huh, I’ll read you but what are your own antecedents, whom are you shilling for?” Before taking onboard and parroting. Beware those who are always wanting to bring the big scoop, the “Breaking News”.

I didn’t say dismiss … I’m saying place it alongside, on the table before you, with all the other “incoming”.

Slow down, examine, even against your own bias, your own natural inclinations. Sometimes a labelled “hostile” who may well be that due to his/her bad decisions on who’s good/who’s bad may have been diverted offtrack on some things. To my mind, blind faith in Donny is just as dangerous as TDS … slow down, examine via “trusted” sources you’ve built over time. Just whom are they lobbying for?

An obvious “be careful” is Ben Shapiro who may or may not have had a hand in the CK demise but is a known Nethanyahu European Zion exponent. Against that are almost the entirety of Whitehall, quite pro-deathcult and flooded-in illegals. Candace is another … I’ve read the criticisms, usually Zionist, which does not necessarily mean Jewish, which is another thing (see Revelation 3:9).

Beware those who immediately turn on you for quoting from the NT … what are they themselves? The secular Settled Science is god set? Again, be circumspect instead of grabbing your bat and ball and storming off.

Currently, I’m looking at this about Susan Wiles, gatekeeper to Donny, also exploring Ann Vandersteel:

…who seems more ultranationalist in a Stew Peters way, similar to Red Ice. I’m also posting this:

The links you need for that are currently at NOWP 1203:3 (Evets 1). And anyway, how sound are Natural News? And how about Gateway Pundit? Again, don’t dismiss out of hand but be circumspect.

Which brings me to navigation and transparency. If you visit any site, you should go straight to the About, to who’s funding this guy/gal? If it’s hidden away somewhere under all the waffle, if he/she won’t state his/her bias … then be most circumspect, reader. Some, like Rhoda at Expose, are basically sound, just derivative … as I am … name me a pundit who is not derivative … that’s quite different to carving out an empire on the back of other people’s resources and investigation.

Flag is often an indicator … my flag is the Cross of St George but also the Union Flag, but am also MAGA, pro-Orban, secret liking for Giorgia, I like people who use ✝️ in the profile but beware again … so does the socialist Chicago pope and the Canterbury graffiti loving new archbish to be, the rainbow ratbag. And the jargon “ratbag” is a giveaway too, it says Oz influence … I could have said “tosser” instead for her, or for Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Obama, Holder, McCarthy (ex House Speaker). Could have used “jerk”.

Then we should note strange likings, e.g. mine for Annunziata Rees-Mogg, Rupert, not Farage. But even here, apply the 70/30 rule. For every person we have misgivings about … do we like less than 70% of what they’re about? If we like 70 to 90% about them, then they’re on the “fairly trusted” list. I’d worry if you were 100% for any human.