Years ago, I can remember seeing some ridiculous advertisement on the London Underground posing the question 'how come you never see baby pigeons?' Fortunately, I have forgotten whatever idiotic product was being promoted by such nonsense.

Apart from the fact they can't fly, most tube users probably aren't poking about in the same sorts of places inhabited by baby pigeons. Whilst doing a bit of rearranging in a barn earlier in the year, I had to move a pigeon's nest by a couple of yards which, initially, she would not sit on.

However, as you see, she has reared two plump and rather ugly chicks, seen here puffing themselves up for effect. I wonder how much they know about asymptomatic transmission of avian influenza.

Last week, I was asked to join Anna Loutfi on The Bad Law Show. It turned into what felt like a meaty discussion, as we tried to deal with the question 'what is bad law?' I was keen to put across my thoughts on the multiplying effect that the poor administration and burdensome bureaucracy of policing has on those entering the criminal justice system.

You can watch it here (I don't think there's an audio only, I'm afraid): https://youtu.be/XK8XJvCYuL4

This also serves as an opportunity to remind you of the campaign against the Department of Education that Anna is spearheading. Please watch her set out the challenge.

👇🏼

https://youtu.be/q7Mhyc4d7M4

As Alex Thomson notes in the post below this, it is a promising ruling, and it relates back to this post about 'philosophical belief'—which would appear to cut both ways.

👇🏼

"Held as highly as religious beliefs"—a promising ruling.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230812131425/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/12/driving-instructor/

Feargus O'Connor Greenwood makes great sense of a lot of things during his interview with James Delingpole.

At about the 42min mark, he goes through the various categories of people, ranked by truth and moral fortitude, and then he goes on to describe how interplay between the categories can play out. I am sure we will all be very familiar with the 'backfire effect', which can happen when one tries to convince another with 'truth', only to have it rejected, often inspiring a second round of even greater 'truth', with disastrous results.

Can you relate to this?

Another highly recommended Delingpod.

👇🏼

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-4tb9h-144bb66

There have been plenty of very positive follow-up comments about Feargus's book, 180 Degrees, and many have said it works well with John Hamer's The Falsification of History.

Essential texts for the contemporary historian.

A significant point to concede, or the start of the campaign for popular support for NATO intervention?

👇

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66542065

A job listed on the Gloucester Diocese weekly bulletin says the county's refugee programme is undergoing 'significant expansion', as is that for West Oxfordshire. I wonder how many counties do not claim to be doing the same.

The UN uses the phrase 'unwilling to return to it' when describing a refugee's thoughts on the country they are leaving. This seems like a fairly low bar. Use of the words 'himself' and 'his' in the same definition appears to have been taken very literally, when one considers the much-publicised torrent of young men pouring into the country.

This video is a couple of years old, but it is extremely interesting in the context of the work of SPI-B and those ghouls sitting on SAGE. It deals with the science of epigenetics which is, for the most part, a rejection of the notion that your genes can cause specific illnesses. Rather, it is the mind and the environment and, therefore, the stresses on both of those things.

👇🏼

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1NuO9CLecw

It was recommended on Clive de Carle's channel and I think it is fascinating.

On 19 Feb 1970, Iain Macleod opened the debate on decimalisation with this statement: 'This House regrets the system of decimalisation of the currency to which Her Majesty's Government has committed this country.'

Quite apart from the significant practical difficulties associated with the change to a decimal currency, there were many other legitimate concerns expressed by the public and ignored by Westminster. A link to the transcript is below.

40 years after decimalisation (in 2011), the Daily Mail ran a piece savaging the change. By 2021, though, the piece on 50 years since adopting a decimal currency was almost devoid of opinion, as though changes of this sort are simply inevitable.

With the stench of CBDC becoming ever-stronger, I think we would do well to explore the grounds for opposition to the decimal currency as well as revisiting the campaign to stay away from the EU single currency.

Hansard

👇🏼

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1970-02-19/debates/87d1f010-616a-4efb-b046-1fd14812ebcc/Decimalisation

Daily Mail at 40 years

👇🏼

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1351563/The-day-Britain-lost-soul-How-decimalisation-signalled-demise-proudly-independent-nation.html

Daily Mail at 50 years

👇🏼

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9259063/Royal-Mint-marks-50th-anniversary-Decimal-Day.html

In the same way that Usain Bolt seemed to be conferred an advantage of sorts by his surname, to what extent did the Church of England select the Revd Nigel Genders on merit, for the post of Chief Education Officer......?

👇🏼

https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/stories-blogs-and-features/valuing-all-gods-children-response-recent-claims

ULEZ court challenge

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-ulez-expansion

Over the top it may be, but it does step one off on the right foot of a morning!

👇

The world's most over-the-top song ever about going for a pint.

youtube.com/watch?v=SblRmirRTwk

Once upon a time, the British Medical Journal used to publish data about the effectiveness of various clinical treatments. They no longer publish this data, which is hardly surprising. One of the last reports from back in 2007 found that just 11% of 3000 different interventions were beneficial. About 15% of treatments had no effect, were ineffective, or were likely to cause harm. Nearly 25% were 'likely' to be beneficial, but they couldn't be sure because there wasn't enough evidence.

Here's the kicker, 50% of all clinical treatments had unknown effectiveness. Why? Because there wasn't sufficient evidence.

People are under this illusion that every little aspect of medicine is based on 'scientific evidence'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Next time someone wants to talk about 'evidence based medicine'.....just remember, only 11% of what is done in medicine has sufficient evidence to be defined as 'beneficial'.

Source

Follow Humanley: t.me/humanley

At no point since mid-2020 did anyone in the United Kingdom have to wear a 'face covering'. This slide shows the Government guidance from that period (now 'withdrawn').

The exemption criteria made it perfectly clear that 'to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to yourself or others', a face covering should not be worn. The inclusion of such a broad clause was a clear statement that the entire exercise was a test of compliance.

Furthermore, this decision was to be taken by the individual, with no requirement for corroboration, no requirement for an 'exemption card', and such a decision may not be questioned or challenged, at any time.

Outdated Govt guidance HERE.

Recent article from Daily Mail, citing study which confirms blindingly obvious harms from wearing something over your breathing apparatus.

When Michael Gove announced that he would be binning EU legislation on water pollution in order to build new houses, he seems to have tried to make it sound as though this 'bold move' was one of the consequences of a glorious Brexit and of a proud nation standing on its own two feet. The reality is rather different.

Just like Net Zero (which still reminds me very much of the ridiculous idea of a smoking section on an aircraft), the commitment to build new 'affordable' houses in the UK has rather sandy foundations, which means the system must be fiddled if it is to stand any chance of working.

During the House of Lords Debate on 'Land Use in England Committee Report', Lord Moylan spilt the beans by saying 'The result of this is that we heard evidence that housebuilders are already buying up land elsewhere in the country not for development purposes but with a view to closing down the farms that are operating on it in order to accommodate the offsetting measures needed either for nutrient neutrality mitigation or to accommodate biodiversity net growth.'

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill can be viewed in full HERE.

I am pleased to see in the comments that so many people were very much aware of this at the time. I suppose the reason for posting the original message was partly as a reminder in the face of the MSM chatter about all this rubbish starting again, but mostly as an aide memoire which might be sent on to those who struggle with defiance, or who do feel obliged to go along it it when they shouldn't.