ELON MUSK SALUTE

At Donald Trump's inauguration parade Elon Musk, who was  prancing about the stage like a deranged puppet with clenched fists gestures

made what many have interpreted as a Nazi salute - judge for yourself.

 THE RT. REV. MARIANN EDGAR BUDDE

The Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde during a service at the Washington DC National Cathedral did, at the end of her sermon, implore Trump to have mercy and to remember Christian values when dealing with immigrants and trans-gender people who are now afraid for their future.

She reminded him that Americans  were all new-comers once.  It was a powerful and heart-felt expression of those Christian values Trump professes but seemingly does not practice.

It has now gone viral on You Tube, watch it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9uSLoxTtwI

Trump and Vance were clearly not happy with this sermon, Trump afterwards saying it could have been better.

"He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really co-operating with it"

Martin Luther King Jr.

 TRUMP, GREENLAND AND WORLD WAR III

Donald Trump seems to be determined to take control of Greenland one way or another.

Just to put the record straight, Greenland is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark and has been a Danish/Scandinavian possession since first occupied by the Vikings in the 10th century.

It's citizens are full citizens of Denmark and as Greenland is one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union, citizens of Greenland are also European Union citizens

The United States of America has no cultural, religious or indigenous  connections with Greenland whatsoever.

During World War II, the US invoked its Monroe Doctrine and occupied Greenland by military force, Denmark being occupied by Germany at the time was in no position to object.

Despite post war objections to an armed military presence on its sovereign territory Denmark has been unable to compel America to leave and abandon it's illegal occupation and in1951 was forced to enter into a treaty with America giving it a significant role in Greenland's defence and the United States  Space Force currently maintains a base on Greenland.

This is a prime example of a big powerful country like America using its strength and might against a smaller weaker country, it is bullying of the worse kind and a deplorable use by America of its force. America can now no longer be consider a force for good but sits alongside Putin's Russia as a bullying, Imperialist power.

If Trump were to carry out his threat, should Denmark refuse to his 'request' to buy Greenland, and occupy it by force of arms, then as Greenland is a member of NATO, whose creed is an attack against one member state is considered an attack on all, Greenland would be within its rights to demand NATO fulfil its treaty obligations and declare war upon the USA.

 

 BAIL AND SHOPLIFTERS

It was recently brought to my attention that the Bail Act of 1976 has been amended by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Section 7 of the Act, subsection (5A) clause (d) says:

"A justice of the peace may not remand a person in, or commit a person to, custody if it appears to the justice of the peace that there is no real prospect that the person will be sentenced to a custodial sentence in the proceedings".

OK, so what does that mean in practice?

Let us assume we have before us a prolific shop-lifter, with 86 previous convictions, all of a minor nature.

She or he has pleaded not guilty to the theft of a bottle of wine, value £6.75 from Tesco.

The proceedings must now be adjourned for trial at a later date, and the question of bail must therefore be addressed.

It is highly unlikely that the accused, if convicted, will be sent to prison, such a small-value theft would likely result in either a fine or a low-level Community Order.

Prior to the Bail Act being amended bail could have been refused, and the accused kept in prison until his or her trial on the grounds that:

"The court , based on your record of past offending, has substantial grounds to believe that if released on bail you would,  as you have in the past, commit further offences, bail is therefore refused and you will be kept in prison until the date of your trial".

This is now impossible, and unless the accused has tested positive for Class A drugs, and the offence is drug related, the accused must be released un-conditionally and be free to go on committing further offences.

In all probability the accused will continue such small-scale shop-lifting, racking up offences quicker than the court can process them.

I don't know who or why someone thought that this was a good idea, it is nothing less than a get-out-of-jail-free card to the prolific shop-lifter.

Theft from shops has now reached epidemic proportions.

In 2022/23, retailers reported 16.7 million incidents of customer theft, costing them £1.79 billion, that's £1,790,000,000!

A significant increase from the previous year and which these restrictions on the court's powers will only exacerbate.

 

 INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

The presumption of innocence is the bedrock of English jurisprudence, there is no requirement to prove you are innocent, it is for the prosecuting authority to prove you are guilty, either  beyond reasonable doubt (which just means such that you are sure), or on the balance of probability, used mainly in civil, ie non-criminal matters.

However, there is a disturbing trend to declare someone guilty merely by accusation, if someone suggests he or she 'did it' then they did - end of discussion!

Two notably cases come to mind, the first one being that of the TV presenter GreggWallace

Lorraine Kelly, the so-called 'day-time-queen' has deemed fit to go on television and has 'suggested' that Gregg Wallace 'may' have behaved "appallingly".

 

She goes on to say;

 

"If you make people feel uncomfortable, it's not 1972 ........that a lot of people might say, 'It wasn't that bad really,' well it was, and it was a lot. It wasn't just one person ...............there's a lot of people coming out to say, 'Actually I felt really uncomfortable but I didn't want to say anything'."

It's worth remembering that nothing has been proved against Wallace, and he strenuously denies the accusations made against him, not that a little thing like the presumption of innocence is going to bother the 'day-time-queen'.

 

Perhaps an even worse example is the issue surrounding Prince Andrew's friendship with the Chinese businessman, Yang Tengbo who is 'alleged' to be a spy.

To call the evidence against Mr Tengbo 'slight' would elevate it far above its true worth.

The UK authorities say they 'believed' he was associated with the United Front Work Department (UFWD) - an arm of the Chinese government and even though Mr Yang said he hadn't received orders to interfere with UK interests ie spy,  he could be expected to understand UFWD and the Chinese Communist Party's objectives" and "proactively engage in them without being tasked".

So he's 'believed' to be spying but no-one told him to?

You couldn't make it up - oh no sorry, that's just what the UK authorities have done.

On the basis of such flimsy allegations Prince Andrew has come in for a great deal of criticism for the so-called "unusual degree of trust" between him and Mr Tengb, described as  a "close confidant" of the Prince, being invited to his birthday party in 2020.

Well so what?

It seems to me we are very quick to judge and without a shred of proof  declare someone 'guilty as charged', and if you can, with your spurious allegations, bring down one of the 'great and good' well so much the better - that'll teach em!

 OBSERVATIONS ON 'DIGITAL VOICE'

More properly called  VoIP (voice over internet protocol).

Openreach, who supply broadband and telephone services to the telephone and Internet Service Providers, such as BT, TalkTalk, Plusenet et al will, on the 31st January 2027, discontinue the current telephone system meaning anyone wanting a land-line telephone service after that date will have to use VoIP.

At present, anyone not on a full fibre broadband package will be unable to do this as if your broadband is delivered either solely by copper wires such as ADSL, or partly by copper, as with FTTC (fibre to the cabinet) it will not be possible to split off your phone line from your broadband service.

What this means in practice is that come 31st January people not on a full fibre broadband service, which will be about 70% of the population, will face a stark choice.

a) Either lose your landline telephone service altogether, or

because your ISP needs your current telephone number to provide you with your broadband

b) Sign up for a VoIP telephone service either with your current provider, or a third-party telephone company, which will mean losing your current 'phone number and being issued with a new one. or

c) Changing to a new full-fibre broadband service at considerable more cost and which will require the drilling of a hole through your outside wall to get a new fibre cable into your house.

Then providing you have a power socket near the cable entry point, and a modern telephone handset, plugging your telephone into your new broadband router.

I suspect there is going to be a huge up-roar come 31st Jan 2027 when everyone not on full fibre (the majority of the population) will be given the above choices, assuming someone tells them about them in good time.

Older less 'tech-savvy' customers are most at risk of being excluded from a reasoned decision making process, and vulnerable to being conned by an unscrupulous dealer or individual, keen to make money out of people's predicament.

And no-one is talking about this, nothing from ISPs, no newspaper articles, nothing on TV, some folk, most folk I suspect, are in for a HUGE shock.

 

 

 CRIME AND IMPRISONMENT

In my blog of 6 Jan 2025 I promised to talk a little more on the criminality of our peoples.

We bemoan the size of the prison population, that imprisonment is inhumane, that prisons are 'an academy of crime', that we send far too many people to prison blah blah blah!

Whilst I won't comment on the first three arguments regarding imprisonment, I concede there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding how  prisoners are treated, especially with the dearth of any meaningful rehabilitation programs, but I do take issue with the accepted article of faith that we send far too many people to prison.

Let us look and consider some official UK and EU statistics.

In the UK 1 in 74 crimes results in imprisonment but in France 1 in 55 crimes results in imprisonment. Thus France imprisons 35% more of its criminals than does the UK.

But the UK prison population is about  88, 000, or 141 per 100,000 whilst in France it is only about 68,000, or 102 per 100,000.

Hold on, France sends 35% more of its criminals to prison, but has a smaller number and proportion of its citizens in jail - that doesn't add up.

No it doesn't  and it's these figures which are touted about by the bleeding-heart liberals and such as the Howard League for Penal Reform to denigrate our so-called cruel sentencing regime.

Let us consider another uncomfortable fact, again taken from official UK Government and EU statistics:

The UK crime rate is 6.52 million crimes or 1 in 10 of the population of 66 million and in France the rate is 3.77 million crimes or 1 in 20 of the population of 76  million - thus we in the UK commit twice as much crime as do the French but we send 35% less of our criminals to prison!

Our overburdened prison system is not as a result of courts sending too many people to jail - the unpleasant truth is we commit far too much crime and letting prisoners out early, the over-use of suspended sentences and all the other hoops the courts jump through to avoid jailing criminals will solve nothing.

Until we, as a society, face up the problem of our  tendency to criminality we will not solve the 'prison problem' - we simply can't build enough prisons to do so.

If you doubt our predilection to break the law consider this - in Germany people wait patiently at a pedestrian crossing until the little green man pops up, even at 2 in the morning where there isn't a car to be seen for half a mile, because to cross against the lights is unlawful.

We on the other hand treat such crossings as a challenge and gleefully dance between the queuing cars, totally ignoring the lights.

And this is on the basis that less than 5% of committed crime results in a conviction, let alone imprisonment - God help us if the police actually caught more criminals rather than interviewing people for alleged 'non-crime hate incidents'.