The music never stops…
A “holocaust” “survivor”, born in a WW2 camp in Austria, who spent one week there until American forces arrived. Don’t they see how mad this is (and reads)?
Incidentally, that Israeli report says at first that the said “survivor” was born at Mauthausen camp, and then lived there for a month; later it clarifies that, and says that she was only there for one week! How long was the stay? A month, a week, or maybe even only one day? I myself know nothing of the matter and, of course, cannot say whether the account is true at all, though there is no particular reason to disbelieve the entirety of the narrative .
Obviously, elderly persons cannot actually remember anything of what happened to them when they were a day, a week, or a month old. The report says that the person mentioned tells stories about her mother, on the premise that the mother had told them to the daughter.
Equally obviously, I know nothing of what happened to that mother during or before WW2. How long was she at that camp? It is unclear where she originated. From the surname, maybe in Czechoslovakia.
Mauthausen is in Austria, which joined with Germany after the plebiscite of 1938. Czechoslovakia was entirely annexed to the German Reich in 1939. The central Mauthausen camp was constructed from 1938, and became a labour camp in 1939. There were offshoots. In other words, it was in operation for up to 7 years.
We do not know whether the mother of the “survivor” mentioned in the Times of Israel report was at Mauthausen from the late 1930s, early 1940s, or only during 1945 when the Americans arrived. Later rather than earlier, in all probability. At any rate, the mother also survived the war and, according to the newspaper report, died in 2013 in the UK.
There is a continuing propaganda effort made by Israel and by Zionists resident elsewhere. We should never accept accounts, whether first-hand or, as here, secondhand (or third-hand), naively, meaning on trust. Not when there is a large-scale operation behind these sorts of accounts.
Moreover, the “historical” aspect is to some extent a red herring. The real purpose is to reinforce Zionist power now, in the contemporary world.
China, for all its impressive achievements ancient and modern, is appalling. There is a self-interested cabal in Britain, centred on the financial industry, that is effectively a pro-China lobby group. Many MPs have also been bought or suborned by China. We should be joining with Russia to oppose China, NWO and ZOG (though Russia is itself not uncontaminated by the last).
Oh…and look at this! I blogged about the egregious Professor Ferguson only yesterday or the day before:
“PETER HITCHENS: Guess where Professor Lockdown got his ideas … China’s police state…” [Mail on Sunday]
“One of the strangest things about our recent national madness has been the role of Professor Neil Ferguson, the physicist who has somehow come to dominate Johnson’s Covid policy.
Physicist? Yes, that is his main academic discipline. He doesn’t even have a Biology O-level, as he himself cheerfully admits. But that’s no odder than his repeated record of wild predictions of vast numbers of deaths, for a variety of diseases from foot-and-mouth to mad cow, which can kindly be described as exaggerated.
And then there’s his complicated private life, which resulted in a pretty clear breach of the miserable restrictions he had helped to impose on the rest of us. As with all such cases, I don’t blame him for breaking the stupid rules. I despise him as a hypocrite for supporting them and then thinking they didn’t apply to him.
Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, said at the time that it was ‘just not possible’ for Ferguson to continue advising the Government. But this was not true. The professor was said to have resigned from the SAGE advisory committee. But did he? Not really.
A current State website lists him as a member of the ‘New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group’ (NERVTAG). Minutes suggest he was only ever away from that for a few weeks. But this is small potatoes, set beside an amazing admission by Ferguson in a recent interview with the semi-official newspaper The Times.
Here, Ferguson spoke of SAGE’s growing admiration for China’s tyrannical attempts to contain Covid.
To begin with they thought – with good reason – that the dishonest and repressive Chinese state was covering up the truth about the Wuhan outbreak. I am sure they still are covering it up.
Modern China is a horrible place, cruel, ruthless and unembarrassed. But for some reason SAGE came to like Peking’s Covid strategy. Ferguson told The Times that ‘as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy’.
I’d be interested to know how the SAGE geniuses evaluated data from this police state, which lacks a free press or independent universities. But there.
Even so, they hesitated. As Ferguson says: ‘It’s a Communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought.’
Aren’t those words ‘we couldn’t get away with it’ interesting? Is this the way in which public servants in a free country think of the normal limits on what they can do? I can only hope not.
But Ferguson and his friends then saw what happened in Italy, where a formerly free country reached for the weapons of repression and mass house arrest. And the rule of fear was so great that they got away with it. So we were next. Or, as Ferguson puts it: ‘And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.’
They could. But they did not have to. They chose the Chinese way. And so they ‘got away with’ beginning a disaster which still continues. There is still no evidence that any of this Chinese-inspired repression has worked.
Every country that has locked down has failed to control the disease and keeps doing the same thing over and over again in the hope of getting a different result.
If lockdown is an effective policy, then the guillotine is a good cure for a headache (except that the guillotine probably does cure a headache).
The shame of it is that the lockdown fanatics did ‘get away with it’, and continue to do so. That is, quite simply, because most of the responsible people in our society did not stand up for wisdom and freedom but allowed themselves to be swept away in a flood of State-sponsored fear, like so many pawns.” [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday].
Not sure that that is correct. It has been long since I was a practising barrister, and even longer since I had any substantial contact with private international law, or tax law (though I did both academically in the 1980s, and to a limited extent professionally in the succeeding two decades).
Still, it seems to me that countries (states) do not enforce the tax laws of other countries. I cannot see how that law can be enforced or even organized. I hesitate to say that that tweet is simply wrong, because I do not know, and because nothing that this bad excuse for a government might do would surprise me.
A “thought out of season“
We support this or that, oppose this or that, do this or that, and all the while all that we are doing is, in effect, a re-arranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic, in the hackneyed phrase.
More tweets seen
Interesting historical note about Southern England
“At the end of the last glaciation, about 10,000 years ago, the area’s ecosystem was characterised by a largely treeless tundra. Pollen studies have shown that this was replaced by a taiga of birch, and then pine, before their replacement in turn (c. 4500 BC) by most of the species of tree encountered today – including, by 4000 BC, the beech, which seems to have been introduced from mainland Europe. This was used as a source of flour, ground from the triangular nutlets contained in the “mast”, or fruit of the beech, after its tannins had been leached out by soaking. Beechmast has also traditionally been fed to pigs.
However, by 4000 BC, as Oliver Rackham has indicated, the dominant tree species was not the beech, but the small-leaved lime, also known as the pry tree. The wildwood was made up of a patchwork of lime-wood areas and hazel-wood areas, interspersed with oak and elm and other species. The pry seems to have become less abundant now because the climate has turned against it, making it difficult for it to grow from seed. Nevertheless, some remnants of ancient lime-wood still remain in south Suffolk.
Clearance of forests began with the introduction of farming (c. 4500 BC), particularly in the higher-lying parts of the country, like the South Downs. At this time, the whole region, apart from upland areas under plough, and marshy areas (e.g. Romney Marsh in Kent and much of Somerset), was heavily forested, with woodland stretching nearly everywhere.” [Wikipedia] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Lowlands_beech_forests
Late tweets seen
Ha ha! In fact, tweeter “katmonkey/@braidedriver2” is halfway right. “@rattus2384” is in fact house-husband, and one-time “film critic”, Stephen Applebaum (who also tweets as “@grubstreetsteve”). He has no job or profession, so she is right in principle.
On the wider point, that cartoon has it quite right. For those who, like me, are neither employed nor self-employed, the “lockdowns” or near lockdowns make little difference beyond being a general nuisance.
In my own case, being now 64, and having been disbarred in 2016 by reason of the machinations of a pack of Jews [see https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/], I have nowhere to commute to or attend on a daily basis. I never attend (and rarely ever did) parties, or crowded nightclubs and/or discotheques. In fact, I lead —and generally have led— a fairly reclusive life (with some exceptions in previous times, admittedly).
My own everyday life is scarcely impacted at all by “lockdowns” etc. I oppose these stupid “measures” because they are trashing society, trashing the economy, ruining the very concept of law, and for what? Nothing.
It is obvious, as that cartoon expresses, that the public sector (including much of the NHS) is in fact working far less now but for enhanced or the same pay as pertained pre-“the virus”. The retired, unemployed and disabled are as well off, or better off, than they were “pre-Covid”.
Particularly well-off are MPs, who are getting more pay than before, who in many cases are getting more paid outside (and often fake) “work”, (almost bribes, really) “consultancy”, but are doing almost nothing for it.
Beware of most “scientists” and technical bods, with their often very narrow range of knowledge, and their often very fixed political viewpoint.
The truth is out there, as they say…or to use another well-worn phrase, you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink. The problem with the “virus” situation”, including the facemask nonsense, “lockdowns”, the economic consequences etc, is that most people do not want to think, and do not want responsible freedom; they want to be told what to do, when to clap, when to wear a face muzzle, and when to obey “official” directives, even if more or less made up by the local police superintendent.
We have been here before: most British people refused to take the threat of, and consequences of, mass immigration seriously. They preferred to direct their interest to whether the “England” team would win a football, cricket or rugby game on the other side of the world. Look at the results…
12 thoughts on “Diary Blog, 3 January 2021”
Is it considered ethical by the legal profession’s governing body for a lawyer to have a sexual relationship with a current client? Does it matter whether it is criminal or civil law?
Every legal profession (and in England there are at least three— barristers, solicitors, legal executives) has different precise rules. In Scotland, similar (advocates,solicitors etc). In other and foreign jurisdictions (eg New York, where I am qualified though where I never practised) different rules may apply, or be applied differently.
By way of example, see below the ethical guidance issued by the Bar Council (the English Bar’s ruling body, though not the disciplinary one now; that is the Bar Standards Board):
See particularly s.22 of that guidance.
I have never studied it, but I imagine that the equivalent disciplinary body to the Bar’s BSB but for solicitors, the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, has similar rules.
ps. If by “criminal law” you mean that the lawyer in question practises in that field rather than civil and common law, then no. No difference.
Thanks for the link to the relevant guidance. It seems a lot more liberal-minded and left to the discretion of various parties than the media had led one to believe from the treatment of politicians i.e. it is not a flat breach of one’s duty or professional ethics to be involved in such a relationship – it all depends on the details and perhaps the perception of the relationship by third parties (which of course becomes an opening for the press – if it comes out in public). In other words, don’t get caught appears to apply.
Yes, though as a matter of practice, and as far as barristers are concerned, any hint of unusual intimacy between a barrister and his/her lay client will generally be disapproved of within Chambers (if, as you imply, it becomes known).
In fact, it is generally not approved of even to have a drink with the client, especially a criminal client. I did break that latter “rule” a couple of times in early years. I recall one lady who insisted on buying me a drink after the case. Not that it was the Great Train Robbery…she had been accused of breaking the window of a police car!
STILL propagating your utterly unscientific theories, Mr Loony Bin Hitchens in discredited Tory rags like The Mail on Sunday?🙄
For your information, Hitchens, even the most cursory glance at Wikipedia will prove you are totally wrong. PROPER Lockdowns rather than the inadequate one we had that wasn’t enforced strictly and didn’t come with travel bans/restrictions at our airports thanks to the governing NON COnservative Party’s addiction to globalism and open borders DO work as China, New Zealand, Vietnam, Australia and Taiwan demonstrate.
Dissenters or loony bin libertarian extremist cranks like you, Mr Repellent Hitchens, DO have ‘blood on your hands’ and in a sensible country ie not one not like this increasingly lawless and degenerate one but more like Singapore people like you would be made to pay a heavy price for your stupidity and utterly grotesque irresponsibility at a time of national crisis.🤬😡
You, Mr Hitchens, would be well advised to SHUT IT or you may suffer consequences if you don’t.
Very wellsaid, Graham Bottley.😀😄👌😂😎🍷 Normally, I abhor the usual lefty mob who call for the censorship of those who disagree with them but in the case of a Hitchens, Toby Young and the excretable Julie Hartley-Brewer then the time has come for the authorities to take stringent actions against them because they DO have ‘blood on their hands’ when they encourage selfish, mindless, morons who are, in many cases, libertarian Tory extremists, to purposefully disobey the social distancing requirements by opening gyms, by organising raves, holding large wedding parties. These actions have COST lives so those who do them should have the book thrown at them just like in Singapore and those who have encouraged it as well like Hitchens has .should also face those consequences.
I can see why Peter has such an animus against China. That is because, despite its faults, the government there can’t abide the kind of grotesquely irresponsible, libertarian, selfishness that causes preventable deaths during a worldwide viral pandemic that worthless scum like Hitchens, Julie Hartley-Brewer, Toby Young encourage by their irresponsible tweet etc.
In efficient and virtually Covid-19 free China the excretable likes of Hitchens, Young and Hartley-Brewer would be put up against a wall and summarily shot.😂👌😎
This is, in the final analysis, the only way to deal with such people.
WAY TO GO, China! 😂😄😷😁😷😷😷😎😎😎🍷🍷🍷👌👌😷😷😷😷No wonder The Guardian had a report a few weeks ago saying that China would surpass the USA in economic terms as early as 2028!
Even billionaires are not spared from the death penalty for committing economic crimes:
China has much to be proud of. I bet you can walk the streets of Beijing late at night and not have as much chance of getting stabbed to death or severely injured like in Stab City Upon The Thames (formerly known as London and which was, once, one of the world’s finest capital cities).
According to the wonders of Google and its search box, Stab City has already had some terrible knife stabbing incidents even these few hours into 2021.
‘Tory’ ‘Britain’ isn’t safe either from Covid-19 or from the general rise in criminality whereas Communist Party run China IS.
So, how about that then, Peter, and I haven’t even mentioned their stupendous economic growth!🙄
Don’t knock China too much!
I have just read an utterly appalling story using google’s search box and putting the words London and stabbing into it. Apparently, a man has been stabbed in the head in Romford.! 😡🤬☹️😞Now, that town is very near to me in Brentwood, Essex and is infact my town of birth! Even up to ten years ago, crimes like that wouldn’t have happened in Romford which was a better place to live than traditional dumps like Hackney or Newham!
I have a feeling despicable violent crimes like that are a rarity in China! So, on that score, it is far better to be living in the Communist one party state of China than in increasingly lawless ‘Tory’, democratic’ , ‘Britain’, Peter!🙄🙄🙄🙄
M’Lord of Essex:
I noticed yesterday that 5 teenagers (inc a girl) are arrested for conspiracy to murder after another teen was found dead, apparently stabbed, at a rural but near-suburban place on the edge of the Reading area, in South Oxfordshire. An area called “Bug’s Bottom”.
I have been there (50 years ago). I lived only a mile, if that, from there, and played golf aged 15 as a junior member of the Reading Golf Club, that was and I think still is not far away, about the same distance in the other direction.
The UK is becoming an almost frightening place…it has been trashed by the Westminster traitors.
For which, for natural justice to be adequately served, they must pay the ultimate price:
Death by long-drop hanging:
I reckon that Westminster will be very nearly empty after a new Albert Pierrepoint is trained by Singapore’s hangman and does what needs to be done as both justice and as a deterrent to future treason and treachery.
That is about 600 hangings out of 650 in the House of Treason.