Press release:
Statement from the UK Presidency of the Convention on Cluster Munitions on their use in Ukraine
Published: 2 March 2022

"we condemn any use of cluster munitions by any actor, remaining steadfast in our determination to achieve a world entirely free of any use of these weapons."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-uk-presidency-of-the-convention-on-cluster-munitions-on-their-use-in-ukraine

WW3... Starting in Eastern Europe, just like the last one. Not If. When.

Excess deaths; a reminder.

This slide shows the number of times the phrase 'excess deaths' has been recorded in the Houses of Parliament, since 1 Jan 21.

The spike to the right of the chart shows 11 references, during 'Excess Deaths: Policy Implications' from 24 Jan 23 in the House of Commons. I would encourage you to read the transcript, which is not very long, and confirms that the Government could not care less and has absolutely no interest in finding reasons, especially since this is happening in other countries.

👇🏼

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-01-24/debates/489D0FB5-7CF7-40D5-AB75-68ABDA6676F2/ExcessDeathsPolicyImplications

Statistics from ONS released this morning show 950 excess deaths in the UK in week 26 (8.8% over the 5-yr ave).

👇🏼

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

Today’s comedy item:

realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/07/08/why_jens_stoltenberg_should_be_a_candidate_for_the_nobel_peace_prize_964808.html

Glyphosate is the main ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, and it will lay waste to any organism in its path. The European Food Standards Agency has, this week, affirmed its position as sitting comfortably in the palm of the industry by declaring glyphosate 'safe'.

The full report from EFSA will be out later this month, but the interim one is worth reading, especially this bit: "With respect to ecotoxicology, the data package allowed a conservative risk assessment approach, which identified a high long-term risk to mammals in 12 out of 23 proposed uses of glyphosate."

👇🏼

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/glyphosate-no-critical-areas-concern-data-gaps-identified

This comes just a few weeks after a well-publicised $290m settlement in which Monsanto (Bayer subsidiary) coughed up due to the likelihood that Roundup caused cancer to a man being supported in his case by Robert F Kennedy Jr.

👇🏼

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/robert-f-kennedy-case-monsanto-roundup-weed-killer

We may be 'out' of the EU in name, but the dangers to plant, animal and human health this side of the channel are just as present.

Ryszard Legutko (a Polish MEP), tells it like it is to the European Parliament. Whilst most of those in attendance appear to be sucking on lemons, or trying to make light of what he is saying, it is to their credit that they are actually in the chamber. As a general rule, any such truth spoken in Westminster—these days—is to empty benches.

👇🏼

https://odysee.com/@Sasquatch:6/aabbmadammmmmmm:4

A short piece on how things turn out if you're prepared to take a bop on the nose from Sadiq Khan. Please share it if you find it useful, interesting or even vaguely amusing.

👇🏼

https://open.substack.com/pub/charlesmalet/p/fisticuffs-for-1250

In taking the view that Russia has stood up to the corrupt and depraved regimes of the West by seeking to stop the rot in neighbouring Ukraine, I believe one runs the risk of failing to scrutinise what IS going on in Russia. Putin appears to speak a lot of sense, especially on the issues that plague those of sound mind and cause the deepest divisions in our country.

Even if he may be regarded as the best of a bad bunch, how likely is it that Putin intends for Russia a future that is completely different from ours? Riley Waggaman, as Edward Slavsquat, has just reported the drafting of the legislation which will enable the launch of Russia's digital ruble:

👇🏼

https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/the-digital-ruble-its-finally-here

In February, I forwarded a couple of articles showing how the 'war' is being used as a pretext for accelerating towards to the use of digital ID and CBDC in Russia.

👇🏼

https://cointelegraph.com/news/russia-s-gazprombank-recommends-slow-cbdc-rollout-fearing-loss-of-income

👇🏼

https://off-guardian.org/2023/02/17/russia-to-introduce-digital-identity-cards/

This is no different from the way in which Ukraine has used the 'war' to accelerate such things, nor the way in which 'COVID' has been used here (try to find a government policy document written from Apr 2020 onwards that does not refer to the changes brought by the 'pandemic') to push us in directions we were simply not considering going in.

Anything with the word 'digital' in the title is exposed to all sorts of technical hitches and, more importantly, all kinds of cyber-attack and fraud. The 'security' for these products is not even remotely good enough and nor will it ever be.

However, in the name of control and convenience, it is highly likely that both the ID and the currency will be introduced. We have a responsibility to frustrate the efforts of those managing the implementation, in order that it fails, either in its entirety, or in not capturing everyone (think vax passport). After all, when was the last time someone else lost your wallet for you?

Look at the sheer panic induced by a real question from a real person, and the confected applause to drown out any further remarks. Children caught in a grown-up world, for a moment. What possible reason could there be for imagining that a politician should have any control over our lives?

You may have been following the events at the Stradey Park Hotel in Llanelli, where the Home Office planned to install 350 migrants—sacking 95 hotel employees in the process. There has been a well-coordinated demonstration against this, which appears to have resulted in a failure by police to disperse the protestors. Video footage on social media shows police leaving the scene and the Police and Crime Commissioner has been forced to write to the Home Secretary, twice. Outcomes of this sort are very much achievable by the sustained action of a number of people. Video to follow.

Letter from PCC to Home Secretary.

👇🏼

https://www.dyfedpowys-pcc.org.uk/en/news/press-releases/dyfed-powys-police-and-crime-commissioner-dafydd-llywelyn-calling-for-pause-and-review-of-plans-by-home-office-to-accommodate-asylum-seekers-at-llanelli-hotel-amid-escalating-local-tensions/

Locals staging protests at Stradey Park Hotel in Llanelli where the owners have sacked 95 employees to make way for some 350 unvetted migrants, the Welsh are having none of it!

It's NATO Summit time!

👇

https://youtu.be/iAkolDpQNfs

As the BBC continues to roll around in the oomska that will forever be its favourite subject—its own glorified failings—it looks more certain that the public will be allowed nowhere near the truth of the Huw Edwards debacle. At the moment, it seems to have boiled itself down to just two 'facts'; that Edwards has had serious 'mental health' problems for several years and that the Metropolitan Police Service have found no evidence of criminal offences having taken place.

The choreography of the story itself has led many to believe that the entire thing is nothing more than a 'psyop' to strengthen the case for the Online Safety Bill. Whilst I do not believe that to be the case, there is no doubt that many aspects of the bungling could be cherry-picked for the benefit of the Bill. Most especially, the pressure on independent news outlets, with so much focus on 'recognised news publishers' and the sanctions that may be faced by those that are not recognised.

Then there are the factors of 'content that is harmful to children' and 'identity verification', both of which can be readily connected to the use of a 'dating app', as it is impossible to verify the identity of a user and, obviously, could lead to all manner of harmful situations. The Bill contains many references to 'communications offences', despite there being a great deal of existing legislation covering this in broad enough terms to act as a catch-all.

What the Bill does do, is clad OFCOM in many layers of armour, and give it a few broadswords to boot. It is very long and tediously set out, but the Bill in full is to be found below (click on 'Get File').

👇🏼

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

On the issue of investigating, I would argue that the BBC should have referred this matter to police in the first instance. At best, it appears naive that they would consider that no criminal activity had taken place, and the point remains that they have neither the authority nor the tools to determine what may or may not have happened. Quite apart from determining whether there was any credence in the specific allegations against Edwards, the BBC had no way of knowing if any of the parties had been involved in any previous criminal activity.

Situations involving reporting by third parties are always complicated, often because there are a host of reasons why the apparent 'victim' may not want to take the matter further and will go to great lengths to avoid it. Had this been handled by police from the start, they would (or should) have known whether any of these characters had 'form' for reporting such matters, with or without smoke/fire. Also, and it might sound dramatic, but if Vicky Flind's statement about her husband is true, police may well have determined that he was 'in immediate need of care or control' and removed him 'to a place of safety', under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

👇🏼

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/20/section/136

Making false allegations is, of course, a very serious business. If Edwards had a relationship with the 'victim', then this would classify the situation as domestic, which adds another layer of complexity. For more on false allegations and domestic abuse, see the CPS website:

👇🏼

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/perverting-course-justice-and-wasting-police-time-cases-involving-allegedly-false

Though presentation of events has changed, I stand by my comments of 10 Jul, especially since not nearly enough time has passed for the Met to have got to the bottom of it (so to speak).